Bene en οοοοα φοννφοθ ιν 
ἣν 


ano 


- τ ent Oe 
pean cate Meet atm : 
wae santa cea arene 
rere ϑῳ» ἀάναῤρ συ ς 


τ Αννα jt 





μι 
Ρὴ 
τη 
= 
ΕΞ 
ar) 
ἘΞ 
βὴ 
Ζι 
Ζι 
Θ 
= 
ΒΩ 
Ό 
ἘΞ 
μι 
a 
Ay 


From the Library of 
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield 


= 
=3 
= 
= 
ὼ 
μα 
3S 
o 
—_ 
Sr 
= 
8 
—< 
Θ 
= 
i 
Oo 
Ξ 
= 
a 
—_ 
a 











Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


| https://archive.org/details/criticalexegeticO0abbo 


) 
j 
~ 
4 
ee 
ἐμ 
i 
iD 
u ΤΡ: 
eet 





at ie 
fern! q 7 ᾿ 
ih Gd mar, 





he 
International Critical Commentary 


on the Holn Scriptures of the Old and 





New @estaments 


UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF 


THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D. 


Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York; 


THE REV. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D. 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford; 


THE REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. 
Master of University College, Durham. 


iD 
᾿ ὌΝ 
4 
; , 
} 
Ὶ 
! 
{ 
" 
i 
; 
a 
ὃ 
i 
‘ 
εἴ 
i 
& 
> 
ν᾽] 
ar 
by 


᾿ 
ι3 
af 
! Ξ 
ἐν 
‘ 
rc 
& 1 "4 
ἵ 
"-ἐ 
Bat 
A 
i] 
a ee " ͵ 
. 


i) ΕΝ 





Che International Critical Commentary 
on the §aln Scriptures of the Old and 


New Cestaments. 





ΕἸ ΤΟΙ Θ᾽ PREFACE, 





THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, 
written by British and American divines, of a popular or 
homiletical character. Zhe Cambridge Bible for Schools, 
the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The 
Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), 
The Exposttor’s Bible, and other similar series, have their 
special place and importance. But they do not enter into 
the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such 
series of Commentaries as the Awrzgefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch zum A. T.; De Wette’s Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch zum N. T.; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- 
mentar; Keil and Delitzsch’s Avblischer Commentar tiber das 
A.T.; Lange’s Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack’s 
FHandkommentar sum A. T.; Holtzmann’s MHandkommentar 
sum WV. 7. Several of these have been translated, edited, 
and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English- 
speaking public; others are in process of translation. But 
no corresponding series by British or American divines 
has hitherto been produced. ‘The way has been prepared 
by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, 
Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has 
come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, 
when it is practicable to combine British and American 
scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive 


EDITORS PREFACE 


Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar- 
ship, and in a measure lead its van. 

Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs. 
T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a 
series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, 
under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briccs, D.D., in America, 
and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and 
the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., for the New Testament, 
in Great Britain. 

The Commentaries will be international and inter-con- 
fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical 
bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of 
the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of 
interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and 
clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each 
book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results 
of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions 
still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear 
in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each 
section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, 
or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and 
philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from 
matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testa- 
ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted 
with Hebrew. ‘The History of Interpretation of the Books 
will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, 
with critical notices of the most important literature of 
the subject. Historical and Archeological questions, as 
well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the 
plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical 
Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series. 


THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY. 


er ee τ πποοόὕό.-. 


Tue following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the 
Volumes named below :— 


Genesis. 
Exodus. 
Leviticus. 
Numbers, 
Deuteronomy. 
Joshua. 


Judges. 


Samuel, 


Kings. 


Chronicles. 


Ezra and 


Nehemiah. 


Psalms. 


Proverbs. 

Job. 

Isaiah. 
Jeremiah. 
Minor Prophets. 


Daniel. 


THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


The Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, D.D., Oriel Professor of the 
Interpretation of Holy Scripture, Oxford. 

The Rev. A. R.S. KENNEDY, D,D., Professor of Hebrew, 
University of Edinburgh. 

The Rev. H. A. WHITE, M.A., Fellow of New College, 
Oxford. 

G. BUCHANAN GRAY, B.A., Lecturer in Hebrew, Mans- 
field College, Oxford. 

The Rev. S. R. DRIvER, D.D., Regius Professor of 
Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready. 

The Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow. 

The Rey. GEORGE Moors, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass, 

[Now Ready. 

The Rev. H. P. SmiTu, D.D., late Professor of Hebrew, 

Lane Theological Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio. 


The Rev. FRANCIS BROWN, D.D., Professor of Hebrew 
and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York City. 

The Rev. EDWARD L. CurTIs, D.D., Professor of He- 
brew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 

The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 

The Rev. CHARLES A. Briccs, D.D., Edward Robinson 


Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 


The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Har- 
vard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 


The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of 
Hebrew, Oxford. 


The Rev. A. B. DAvipson, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Free Church College, Edinburgh. 


The Rey. A. F. KrrKpaTrRICK, D.D., Regius Professor of 
Hebrew, Cambridge, England. 


W. R. Harper, Ph.D., President of the University of 
Chicago, Illinois. 


The Rev. JoHN P. PETERS, Ph.D., late Professor of 
Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now 
Rector of St. Michael’s Church, New York City. 


THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY. — Continued. 


St. Mark. 


St. Luke. 


Harmony of 
the Gospels. 


Acts. 


Romans. 


Corinthians. 
Galatians. 


Ephesians 
and Colossians. 


Philippians 
and Philemon. 


Hebrews. 


St. James. 

The Pastoral 
Epistles. 

Peter and Jude. 


Revelation. 





THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


The Rev. E. P. GouLtp, D.D., Professor of New Testa- 
ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 
[Mow Ready. 


The Rev. ALFRED PLuMMeER, D.D., Master of University 
College, Durham. [Now Ready. 


The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., Lady Margaret Pro- 
fessor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rey. WILLOUGHBY 
C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. 


The Rev. FREDERICK H. CHASE, D.D., Fellow of Christ’s 
College, Cambridge. 


The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., Lady Margaret Pro- 
fessor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 
and the Rey. A.C. HEADLAM, M.A., Fellow of All Souls’ 
College, Oxford. [Now Ready. 


The Rev. ArcH. RoBpEeRTSON, D.D., Principal of 
King’s College, London. 


The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, A.B., Professor of New 
Testament Literature, University of Chicago. 


The Rev. T. K. ΑΒΒΟΤΊ, B.D., D. Lit., formerly Professor 
of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin. [Vow Ready. 


The Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor of Bibli- 
cal Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York 
City. [Now Ready. 


The Rev. T. C. Epwarps, D.D., Principal of the Theo- 
logical College, Bala; late Principal of University 
College of Wales, Aberystwyth. 


The Rey. JAMES H. Ropes, A.B., Instructor of New Tes- 
tament Criticism in Harvard University. 


The Rev. WALTER Lock, M.A., Dean Ireland, Professor 
of Exegesis, Oxford. 


The Rev. CHARLES Bicc, D.D., Leamington, England. 


The Rev. RoBert H. CHARLES, M.A., Trinity College, 
Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford. 


Other engagements will be announced shortly. 


ΠΡΠΕΕΤ ΘΒ TO THE EPHESIANS 
SOO TE COLOSSIANS 


ike BO TB: 19: Dali. 





THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 
em mm re eS πττ ως -αςτε πὸ -τἰς -͵θὲὃλΟ. 


A 


ΘΑ AND EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


ἘΝῚ ΤῈ 10 THE EPHESIANS 
AND TO THE COLOSSIANS 


BY 


TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 


1897 


The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved. 


Peer A € 2 


THE following Commentary is primarily philological. Its 
aim is to ascertain with as great precision as possible the 
actual meaning of the writers language. The Com- 
mentaries which have been regularly consulted are those 
of Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, amongst the 
ancients ; and amongst the moderns, Alford, Barry, De 
Wette, Eadie, Ellicott, Meyer (W. Schmidt), Moule, von 
Soden, and the Speaker’s; also for Ephesians, Harless, ) 
Stier, and Macpherson; and for Colossians, Lightfoot. 
The Commentary of von Soden, though concise, is very 
acute and independent. Mr. Moule’s also, although 
bearing a modest title, is of great value. Other writers 
have been occasionally consulted. Much use has been 
made of Fritzsche’s occasional notes in his various com- 
mentaries, especially in connexion with the illustration 
‘of the language of the Epistles from classical and late 
Greek authors. Wetstein, of course, has not been over- 
looked. 

Thevtext adopted is “that of the Kevisers, except 


where otherwise stated. 
Peake AB BOm lr: 





a 
= 5 
a 
= 
— 
_ 
rie 





ae’ on ᾿ 
᾿ ᾿ j ’ 
᾿ ᾿ > ᾿ 7 > = 
= + r 4 4 > - ἢ 
: ! 
; ae Wie ; 
" ῥ Fa Se Ti 
=a i] 
a bi y 
: 
τ » 9 ‘ ' 
Ἀ. 
Ν ὸ Ρ fi 
a ἵ 
W } = 
fins Li , 
+ " 
Δ 
} μ : "ἢ ᾿ 
Pes) mis) Γ 
j p ἘΞ Ξ φ 
᾿ ᾿ 
ἐ ἢ jas ,“- 
j ‘i ἢ { (eg tra ai 
aT ( . ep Ὁ a 
͵ Ἂ 7) 
Ι J Va ¢ Chee 
ων τ΄ οι: 
: [ : f 
ἐ RD od 
he : Sas 
2 Φ ἮΝ 
vagy ata 
. . ΡΥ. 
"ἢ ἢ veh 
: ' ᾿ = } 
᾿ F ees 
i ἢ ¥ a bh 7" lad Ν᾿ ἘΠ ἢ > 
᾿ (2 
ig i 
ἥ i 
7 ἮΝ =a a τῷ 
; ee Ξ th 
- Ι ic? γιὰ ῇ 
ἘῸΝ ᾿ 4 one i a 
= & = i) 
Wis ᾿ Ξ oe 
᾿ ον». π΄ ΝΥ ne 


COME EINES: 


----φ.---- 


ΘΙ ΟΝ TO THE EPISTLE TO THE 
EPHESIANS . 5 : : : : . - i-xlv 


§ 1. To what Readers Written . ; : : ς δ i 

On the reading ἐν Ἐφέσῳ. : - ὃ : Ϊ 

Not written to Ephesus : : 5 : - ili 

Hypothesis ofa circular letter. : : : vi 

§ 2. Genuineness of the Epistle . ς : . : : ix 

External evidence . : ς - : ὃ : ΙΧ 

Internal evidence . : : : . : : xlil 

Objections from the language ; : : Ξ XIV 

Objections from the line of thought. : . xix 

Paley on the internal evidence . : : : sox 

§ 3. Relation to the Epistle to the Colossians . : : Xxlil 

᾿ " First Epistle of Peter . : : : XXIV 

Fe 5 Epistle to the Hebrews. : 3 XXV1 

5 Apocalypse . ὃ ᾿ : ὃ τ ΧΣΥΠΙ 

᾿ > Gospel of St.John. 5 : SERVI 

§ 6. Time and Place of Writing - : : 3 : ΧΧΙΧ 

§ 7. Vocabulary of the Epistle . : 5 Ξ : : ΧΧΧΙ 

§ 8. Contents . : : : : : : : Ξ XXXil 

§ 0. Literature . ς ; : : ; : : Ξ XXXV 

§ 10. On some Readings peculiar to one or two MSS. : xl 
On the maxim “ The more difficult reading is to 

De του τοι ει τος 7. : : : : : Ξ xlv 

Abbreviations : ‘ : : : : : xlvi 


ΕΘ ΟΝ TO, THE EPISTLE TO ΤῊΝ 


COLOSSIANS .« Ξ : : : : . xlvii-lxv 

§ 1. The Church at Colosse . ς ; : : : xlvii 
The Colossian heresy . : : : : : xlix 

§ 2. Genuineness : : : : : : : ] 
Holtzmann’s restoration of the supposed original hi 

Alleged un-Pauline vocabulary. . : Ξ hii 


Alleged Gnostic colouring . : : : ; liv 
vil 


Viil CONTENTS 


§ 3. Place and Date of Writing . = 
§ 4. Relation to other N.T. Writings. 
§ 5. Vocabulary of the Epistle . ° - ; 
§ 6. Contents of the Epistle . : Ξ Ξ 
8. γ. Literature. : - 5 : 


COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO 
EPHESIANS 
Special Notes: On ἀπολύτρωσις. 
On μυστήριον : Ξ 
On the angelic hierarchy . 5 
On τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς. ᾿ . 
On ταπεινοφροσύνη 
On “It saith” 
On sacrifice 


COMMENTARY ON “DHE | EPISTLE ro 
COLOSSIANS . 
Special Notes: On πρωτύτοκος πάσης κτίσεως 
On στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου : 
On ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχάς, K.T.A. 
On the Epistle “from Laodicea” 
Text of the spurious “ Epistle to the Laodiceans ” 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


1. Subjects and Names “4 - 
2. Greek Words . Ξ - . : 5 
Ὁ. Latin Words . - . . . . 


THE 


THE 


ΞΡ ΕΟΒΕΤΙΟΝ. 


δι, TO WHAT READERS WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED ? 


THIS question cannot be treated apart from that of the genuine- 
ness of év ’Edécyw in 1. 1. 

MSS. All extant MS. authority, with three exceptions, is in 
favour of the words. The three exceptions are δὲ B 672. 

In δὲ they are added by a later hand (x°). 

In B they are also added by a corrector (B*), although Hug 
was of opinion that the correction was by the first hand. 

In 67 they were written by the original scribe, but are expunged 
by the corrector. Possibly this correction is not independent of 
B. Lightfoot observes that a reading in St. Paul’s Epistles sup- 
ported by δὲ B 67? almost always represents the original text. 

In addition to these, however, we have the express testimony 
of Basil that the words were absent from the most ancient, or 
rather all the ancient, MSS. in his day. His words are: rots 
*Edecios ἐπιστέλλων, ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ ὄντι OV ἐπιγνώσεως, 
ὄντας αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ 
πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ" οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι καὶ 
ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν (Adv. Eunom. il. 19). 
The hypothesis that he is referring, not to ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, but either 
to τοῖς or to οὖσιν, is quite untenable. How strange it would be 
that he should go on to quote the words καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Xp. Ἶ., 
which had no relation to the interpretation in question, and omit 
the intervening ἐν “Edéow, the absence of which was no doubt 
what gave rise to it! The οὕτω γάρ must surely refer to the whole 
quotation as he gives it. Moreover, he distinguishes the MSS. 
from ot πρὸ ἡμῶν, by which he doubtless meant Origen, who 
omitted the words. Besides, his proof from this passage (against 
Eunomius), that Christ may be called 6 ὦν, would have no founda- 
tion if he had read ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ after οὖσιν. 

1Tt has been said that Basil’s statement is not confirmed. The objection is 


doubly fallacious. His statement as to what he had himself seen does not need 
a 


ii THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [§1 


Versions. All the Versions have the words, but it must be 
borne in mind that we have no MSS. of any of these as old as 
SB. 

fathers, etc. Origen’s commentary is quoted in Cramer's 
Catena as follows: ᾿Ωριγένης δέ φησι, ἐπὶ μόνων ᾿Εφεσίων εὕρομεν 
κείμενον, τὸ ““τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι" καὶ ζητοῦμεν εἰ μὴ παρέλκει (1.6. is 
redundant) προσκείμενον τὸ “τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι᾽ > τί δύναται σημαί- 
νειν ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ ᾿Βξόδῳ ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὃ 
χρηματίζων Μωσεῖ τὸ ὦν, οὕτως οἱ μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος, γίνονται 
ὄντες, καλούμενοι olovet ἐκ τοῦ “μὴ εἶναι εἰς τὸ εἶναι “ ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ 
Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα φησὶν ὃ αὐτὸς Παῦλος “iva τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ," 
x.7.A, As τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν occurs with ἐν and the name of the 
place in other Epistles (2 Cor., Phil. ; cf. Rom. i. 7), it is clear that 
what Origen refers to as used of the Ephesians only is τοῖς οὖσιν 
without év “Edéow. 

Tertullian informs us that Marcion gave the Epistle the title 
“ad Laodicenos” (Adv. Mare. v. 17): “Ecclesiae quidem veritate 
epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, 
sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare (2.6. falsify) 1 gestiit, 
quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator ; nihil autem de titulis in- 
terest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.” Com- 
pare zdzd. τι, ‘ praetereo hic et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios 
praescriptum (2.6. superscribed) habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodice- 
nos.” It is clear from this that Marcion had not the words év 
*Edéo in his text. But it is also inferred with great probability that 
Tertullian himself had them not. For he does not charge Marcion 
with falsifying the text but the title, and he vindicates the title “ad 
Ephesios” by an appeal to the “veritas ecclesiae,” not to the actual 
words in the text, which would have been conclusive. Moreover, 
how strange the remark, “nihil autem de titulis interest,” etc., if he 
had ev ᾿Πφέσῳ in the text of the apostle! It is clear that “titulus ” 
here means the superscription, not the address in the text, 

Lightfoot points out that there are indications in the earlier 
Latin commentators that in the copies they used the word 
“‘Ephesi,” if not absent, was in a different position, which would 
betray its later introduction. ‘Thus in the middle of the fourth 
century, Victorinus Afer writes: ‘‘Sed haec cum dicit ‘Sanctis 
qui sunt fidelibus Ephesi,’ quid adjungitur? ‘In Christo Jesu’” 
(Maz. Script. Vett. Nova Coll, iii. p. 87). 

Ambrosiaster, in his Commentary, ignores “ Ephesi”: “ Non 
solum fidelibus scribit, sed et sanctis: ut tunc vere fideles sint, 
si fuerint sancti in Christo Jesu.” 


confirmation, while as to the fact that the most ancient copies in his day did not 
contain the words, he i is fully supported. 
1 ἐς Interpolare” in Latin writers means usually to furbish up old articles so 


as to make them look new. 


81] TO WHAT READERS ADDRESSED ili 


Sedulius Scotus (eighth or ninth century) writes: ‘ Sanctis. 
Non omnibus Ephesiis, sed his qui credunt in Christo. Et 
fidelibus. Omnes sancti fideles sunt, non omnes fideles sancti, 
etc. Qui sunt in Christo Jesu. Plures fideles sunt, sed non in 
Christo,” etc. The omission of ‘‘ Ephesi” in the quotations from 
the text is of no importance; but the position of “qui sunt” is 
remarkable. It would seem as if some transcriber, finding 
“sanctis qui sunt et fidelibus in Christo Jesu,” and stumbling 
at the order, transposed “qui sunt” into the position in which 
Sedulius, or some earlier writer whom he copies, appears to have 
found them. 

Jerome is doubtless referring to Origen when he says (cz oc.): 
‘Quidam curiosius (2.6. with more refinement) quam necesse est, 
putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum sit ‘ Haec dices filiis Israel : qui 
est misit me,’ etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles, essentiae 
vocabulo nuncupatos. . . . Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos, qui 
sint, sed qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint, scriptum arbitrantur.” 
This is obscurely expressed, and it is not clear whether he means 
to refer to a difference of reading. But as we know that he had 
read Origen’s commentary, he can hardly have been ignorant of 
the fact that the interpretation he quotes implied the omission of 
ev Edéow, and the reader will observe that the word is “ scriptum,” 
not ‘‘scriptam,” as some commentators have quoted it. If this is 
taken strictly it must refer to the reading. 

When we turn to the Epistle itself we find its whole tone and 
character out of keeping with the traditional designation. St. 
Paul had spent about three years at Ephesus ‘‘ceasing not to 
warn every one day and night with tears” (Acts xx. 31). On his 
last journey to Jerusalem he sent for the elders of Ephesus to 
meet him at Miletus. His address to them (Acts xx. 18 sqq.) is 
full of affectionate remembrance of his labours amongst them, and. 
of earnest warnings. The parting is described in touching words: 
“They fell on his neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for 
the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more.” 
There was no Church with which his relations were more close, 
nay, so close and affectionate, or in connexion with which he had 
such sacred and affecting memories. We might expect a letter 
written to Ephesus to be full of personal reminiscences, and 
allusions to his labours amongst them ; instead of which we have 
a composition more like a treatise than a letter, and so absolutely 
destitute of local or personal colouring that it might have been 
written to a Church which St. Paul had never even visited. We 
need not attach much importance to the absence of personal 
greetings. There are no special salutations in the Epp. to the 
Corinthians and to the Philippians, for example, perhaps because, 
as Lightfoot says: “‘ Where all alike are known to us, it becomes 


-“-- 


iv THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [$1 


irksome, if not invidious, to select any for special salutation.” 
But there is not even a general friendly greeting as in those 
Epistles ; there is nothing but the impersonal εἰρήνη τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, 
κτλ Vi. 23. But in addition to the general greeting in Phil., 
for example, ἀσπάσασθε πάντα ἅγιον... ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς ot σὺν 
ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί, κιτ.λ., that Epistle abounds in personal reminis- 
cences, to which there is no parallel here. Even the Epistle to 
the Colossians, whom St. Paul had never seen, betrays a more 
lively personal interest. 

It is impossible to explain this on the supposition that the 
Epistle was addressed to the Ephesian Church, so loving to the 
apostle and so beloved. 

But we may go farther than this, for there are expressions in 
the Epistle which seem impossible to reconcile with the supposition 
that it is addressed to that Church. Ch. 1. 15, “ Having heard of 
your faith,” etc., may perhaps be explained, though not very 
naturally, as referring to the period since his departure from them. 
Not so the following: 111. 2, “‘ For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner 
of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles,—if indeed ye have heard 
of (or ‘were instructed in’) the dispensation of the grace of God 
which was given me to you-ward”; iv. 21, 22, “But ye did not 
so learn Christ, if indeed ye heard of Him, and were taught in 
Him,” etc. 

Dr. Hort thinks the usual reply to the argument from the two 
latter passages true and sufficient, namely, that εἴγε “is not in- 
frequently used with a rhetorical or appealing force where no real 
doubt is meant to be expressed,” and St. Paul could not express 
any real doubt in either case about any Church of Proconsular 
Asia, any more than about the Ephesian Church. 

Let it be granted that εἴγε does not imply the existence of a 
doubt, it certainly (as an intensified “‘if”) implies that doubt is not 
inconceivable. It cannot mean more than “TI am sure,” “I do not 
doubt,” “1 know,” “1 am persuaded.” But this is not the way in 
which a man expresses himself about a matter of his own experi- 
ence, or in which he has himself been the agent. A preacher 
occupying a friend’s pulpit may say “I know,” or “if indeed ye 
have been taught,” but not when addressing those whom he has 
himself taught. 

Dr. Hort in confirmation of his remark about the appealing 
force of εἴγε refers to Ellicott’s note, which is a notable instance of 
petitio principit. Having said that εἴγε “ does not zx z¢sef imply the 
rectitude of the assumption made,” as ‘Hermann’s Cazon implies 
(“εἴγε usurpatur de re quae jure sumpta creditur”), but that this must 
be gathered from the context, he proceeds: “In the present case 
there could be no real doubt ; ‘neque enim ignorare quod hic dicitur 
(111. 2) poterant Ephesii quibus Paulus ipse evangelium plusquam 


81] TO WHAT READERS ADDRESSED Vv 


biennio praedicaverat,’ Estius; comp. ch. iv. 21; 2 Cor. v. 3; 
Col. i. 23. No argument, then, can be fairly deduced from these 
words against the inscription of this Ep. to the Ephesians.” That 
is to say, if εἴγε implied doubt, the Epistle could not be addressed 
to the Ephesians ; but it was so addressed, therefore εἴγε does not 
imply doubt, and therefore is not inconsistent with such an 
address. The three passages referred to in illustration are singu- 
larly unsuitable for the purpose. Ch. iv. 21 belongs to the very 
Epistle in question. In 2 Cor. v. 3, εἴγε καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι οὗ γυμνοὶ 
εὑρεθησόμεθα, and in Col. i. 23, εἴγε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει, κιτ.λ., it 15 
the future that is spoken of, and the particle has its usual sense, 
“if, as I assume.” Lightfoot, indeed (on Gal. ili. 4), expresses the 
opinion that in the N.T. εἴγε is even less affirmative than εἴπερ. 

Eph. ii. 4 also (whether we adopt Hort’s view that ἀναγινώ- 
σκοντες means “reading the O.T. Scriptures ” or not) seems to imply 
that the author was not well known to his readers. The Ephesians 
had not now first to learn what St. Paul’s knowledge of the 
mystery was. 

In the early Church the Epistle was universally regarded as 
addressed to the Ephesians. It is so referred to in the Muratorian 
Canon, by Inenaeus: (Z/ae7: 1. 3. 1,4; 1 ὃ. 45 v. 2: 206); by 
Tertullian (quoted above); by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
iv. 65); and by Origen, who, as we saw above, had not ἐν Edéow 
in his text (Comment. zz Zoc., and Contra Celsum, 111. 20). 

There is one important exception to this general belief, namely, 
Marcion, who, as above mentioned, held the Epistle to be 
addressed to the Laodiceans. This fact has been generally put 
aside as of no importance, it being supposed that this was a mere 
critical conjecture of Marcion (as Tertullian assumes), and prob- 
ably suggested by Col. iv. 16. But considering the antiquity of 
Marcion, who was of earlier date than any of the Catholic writers 
cited, we are hardly justified in treating his evidence so lightly, 
seeing that he could have no theological motive for changing the 
title. Even if his ‘ad Laodicenos” was only a critical conjecture, 
this would justify the inference that the destination of the Epistle 
was at that time to some extent an open question. But it is 
unlikely that he should have been led to adopt this title merely by 
the fact that mention is made elsewhere of an Epistle (not to, but) 
from Laodicea. There is nothing in the Epistle itself to suggest 
Laodicea. It is, then, not improbable that he had seen a copy 
with ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ in the text. 

Passing by this, however, for the present, we have the following 
facts to account for: First, the early absence of ἐν “E¢éow. As 
Lightfoot puts it: ‘““We have no direct evidence that a single 
Greek manuscript during this period (second and third centuries) 
contained the words in question. The recent manuscripts to 





vi THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [31 


which Basil refers in the latter half of the fourth century, are the 
earliest of which this can be distinctly affirmed” (Biblical Essays, 
p. 381). Secondly, the early and universal recognition in the 
Church of the Epistle as written to the Ephesians. 

Writers who hold ἐν ᾿Ε φέσῳ to have been an integral part of 
the original text suppose the words to have been omitted for 
critical reasons, namely, because they seemed not to agree with 
the character of the Epistle. This theory, to be plausible, would 
require the facts to be reversed, z.e. that the words should be 
omitted by the later not the earlier authorities, and that the 
opinion of the early Church should be vacillating. In fact, it 
explains the unanimity of early opinion by supposing that ἐν 
᾿Εφέσῳ was read without question, and explains the early omission 
of the words by supposing that opinion was not unanimous. 

Apart from this, the theory postulates a critical study of the 
relations between the apostle and the Churches which it would be 
a complete anachronism to ascribe to that early age. Much later, 
indeed, we find Theodore of Mopsuestia led by ἀκούσας in 1. 15 to 
regard the Epistle as written by St. Paul before he had seen the 
Ephesians. ‘“‘ Numquam profecto dixisset se auditu de illis cognos- 
centem gratiarum pro illis facere actionem, si eos alicubi vel 
vidisset, vel ad notitiam ejus illa ratione venire potuissent.” So 
also Severianus and Oecumenius. But it did not occur to 
Theodore or the others to question the correctness of the text. 

An accidental omission of the words is out of the question. 
The only hypothesis that agrees with the facts is that the Epistle 
was in some sense an encyclical or circular letter. ‘This seems to 
have been first suggested in a definite form by Ussher (Azm. V. et 
NV. Test. A.D. 64): “ Ubi notandum, in antiquis nonnullis codicibus 
(ut ex Basilii libro 11. adversus Eunomium, et Hieronymi in hunc 
Apostoli locum commentario, apparet) generatim inscriptam fuisse 
hanc epistolam, τοῖς ἁγίοις Tots οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, vel 
(ut in litterarum encyclicarum descriptione fieri solebat) sancéis 
gut sunt... et fidelibus in Christo Jesu, ac si Ephesum primo, 
ut praecipuam, Asiae metropolim missa ea fuisset ; transmittenda 
inde ad reliquas (intersertis singularum nominibus) ejusdem_pro- 
vinciae ecclesias: ad quarum aliquot, quas Paulus ipse nunquam 
viderat, illa ipsius verba potissimum spectaverint.” 

There are two forms of this hypothesis. The first (agreeing 
with Ussher’s view) supposes that a blank was originally left after 
tots οὖσιν, which would be filled in with the names of the respective 
Churches for which the copies were intended, while in the Church 
at large some copies would be circulated with a vacant space, in 
which case, of course, in the copies made from these the blank 
would be disregarded. Or we might suppose, with Hort, that 
there was originally only one copy sent by the hand of Tychicus, 


δ 1] TO WHAT READERS ADDRESSED Vii 


the blank being filled orally when the Epistle was read in each 
place, and the name so supplied being naturally written in the 
copy or copies which would be made for preservation there. 

The objection most strongly urged against this view is that 
there is no trace of copies with any other name in the place of 
*Ed¢éow in the text, and that it is highly improbable that none such 
should have been preserved. A little consideration will show that 
no weight is to be attached to this argument. The Epistle “from 
Laodicea” was either identical with the present Epistle or distinct 
from it. In the latter case, it has wholly perished, not a single 
copy having been preserved even to the time of Marcion. In the 
former case, only the copies bearing other names than that of 
Ephesus disappeared. Is not this quite natural? When copies 
were in demand, where would they be sought for but in the metro- 
politan city and commercial centre of Ephesus? No interest would 
attach to any particular address. Why, then, should it be thought 
much more probable that all copies should have been allowed 
to perish than that only those with names of minor importance 
should fail to be multiplied? Indeed, the fact itself is not certain, 
for it is not improbable that a transcript from the Laodicean copy 
was in Marcion’s hands. In any case, we have a close parallel in 
the fact that the ancient copies which omitted ἐν "Edéow had 
already before Basil’s day been superseded by those which inserted 
the words, and although & B remain (being on vellum), no suc- 
ceeding copyists have a trace of the reading until we come to the 
late corrector of 67. 

It must be admitted that this plan of leaving blanks savours 
more of modern than of ancient manner, and resembles the 
formality of a legal document more than the natural simplicity of 
St. Paul. Indeed, we have examples in 2 Cor. i. 1 and Gal. i. 2 
of the form of address which he would be likely to adopt in an 
encyclical letter. Besides, any hypothesis which makes Ephesus 
the chief of the Churches addressed, is open, though in a less 
degree, to the objections alleged above against the traditional 
designation. 

A second form of the hypothesis supposes the sentence to be 
complete without anything corresponding to ἐν Ἐφέσῳ. Origen’s 
view of the meaning of the passage when these w ords are not read 
has been quoted above, viz. “to the saints who are.’ 

This view has been recently espoused by Dr. Milligan (Zucyc?. 
Brit., art. “ Ephesians”), who translates: “To the saints existing 
and faithful in Christ Jesus.” But the passages to which he refers 
in justification of this are by no means sufficient for the purpose. 
They are—Col. il. 3; ἐν ᾧ εἰσι πάντες οἱ θησαυροί ἜΝ ἀπόκρυφοι: 
20. 10, καί ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι: iil. I, ov ὃ Χριστός ἐστιν ἐν 
δεξίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ καθήμενος. 


viii THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [31 


In these the predicate is completed by ἐν ᾧ, ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗ, and so 
the passages supply no parallel to the supposed absolute use of 
Tots οὖσι here as ‘those existing.” Besides, καὶ πιστοῖς comes in 
very awkwardly and weakly after such an epithet. Bengel, again, 
interprets : ‘ Sanctis et fidelibus gui sunt in omnibus iis locis, quo 
Tychicus cum hac epistola venit,” so that τοῖς οὖσιν = “ qui praesto 
sunt,” comparing Acts xill. 1, κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν, and Rom. 
Xlll, 1, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ἐξουσίαι. But in the former case ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ 
had just preceded, so that only ἐκεῖ has to be supplied; in the 
latter the verb simply means “to be in existence.” Not to dwell 
on the untenable suggestion that τοῖς οὖσιν should be taken with 
ἁγίοις (‘the saints who are really such”), there remains the 
perfectly grammatical construction, ‘‘the saints who are also 
faithful” (see note zz Zoc.). The difficulty of the construction is 
actually diminished by the absence of ἐν ’Edéow. 

The Epistle, then, is best regarded as addressed, not to a 
Church, but to the Gentile converts in Laodicea, Hierapolis, and 
Colossae, and elsewhere in Phrygia and the neighbourhood of 
that province. ‘This is the view adopted by Reiche, Ewald, and 
(independently) by Prof. Milligan (who, however, supposes the 
Epistle addressed only to the Gentile converts of Laodicea and 
Colossae). It meets most of the difficulties. It explains the 
absence of local references combined with the local limitation 
implied in vi. 22. It also escapes the difficulty of supposing a 
blank space ini. 1. Further, it explains the remarkable expression, 
Col. iv. 16, “the Epistle from Laodicea.” That the Epistle 
referred to was not written to Laodicea appears highly probable 
from the fact that a salutation is sent through Colossae to the 
Laodiceans, which would be inexplicable if they were receiving by 
the same messenger a letter addressed to themselves; and the 
expression ‘‘from Laodicea” agrees with this, since Tychicus 
would reach Laodicea first, so that the Colossians would receive 
the letter from thence. Moreover, the hypothesis explains the 
remarkable fact that the Epistle contains no allusion to doctrinal 
errors such as had taken so great a hold in Colossae. Yet that 
such errors extended at least to Laodicea is not only probable, but 
is confirmed by the apostle’s direction that the Epistle to Colossae 
should be read in Laodicea also. 

There is no difficulty in understanding how the title “to the 
Ephesians ” would come to be attached to the Epistle, since it was 
from Ephesus that copies would reach the Christian world generally. 
A parallel case is the title of the Epistle to the Hebrews, πρὸς 
‘EBpaiovs, which, though of doubtful appropriateness, was never 
questioned. Once accepted as addressed to the [phesians, the 
analogy of other Epistles in which τοῖς οὖσιν is followed by the 
name of a place would naturally suggest the insertion of ἐν “Edéow. 


§ 2] OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE ix 


The hypothesis that the Epistle is a “circular” letter has been 
adopted (with various modifications) by a very great number of 
scholars, including Bengel, Neander, Harless, Olshausen, Reuss, 
Arch. Robertson, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Hort, B. Weiss, Wold- 
Schmidt, Milligan. 


§ 2. OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


External Evidence. —'The earliest aS reference to the 
genuine, it must be much later than St. Paul, evidence of 
acquaintance with it on the part of early writers is important. 
When we add to this the fact that it professes to be St. Paul’s, we 
are fairly justified in saying that evidence of its reception is 
evidence of its genuineness. We begin then with— 

Clement of Rome, G (64, ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν 
Χριστὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς dv αὐτοῦ εἰς λαὸν περιούσιον. Compare Eph. i. 4, 
5, καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ... προορίσας ἡμᾶς... διὰ Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ. Still closer is c. 46, ἢ οὐχὶ ἕνα Θεὸν ἔχομεν καὶ ἕνα 
Χριστόν; καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος τὸ ἐκχυθὲν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ μία 
κλῆσις ἐν Χριστῷ; compare Eph. iv. 4-6. Again, c. 36, ἠνεύχθησαν 
ἡμῶν ot ὀφθαλμοὶ τῆς καρδίας ; cf. Eph. 1. 18. And c. 38, trorac- 
σέσθω ἕκαστος τῷ πλήσιον αὐτοῦ ; οἴ. Eph. v. 21. 

The part of the Dédaché called the Two Ways contains the 
following (Did. iv. 10, 11, also worked up by Barnabas, xix. 7): 
οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις δούλῳ σου ἢ παιδίσκῃ τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Θεὸν ἐλπίζουσιν, 
ἐν πικρίᾳ σου; and to servants: ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι ὑποταγήσεσθε τοῖς 
κυρίοις ὑμῶν ὡς τύπῳ Θεοῦ ἐν αἰσχύνῃ καὶ φόβῳ. Compare Eph. 
vi. 9, 5. The coincidence is in substance rather than in words, 
but it is best accounted for by supposing a knowledge of our 
Epistle. 

- Ignatius, Zp. ad Eph. c. 12, Παύλου συμμύσται (ἐστε), τοῦ 
ἡγιασμένου, .. . ὃς ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ μνημονεύει ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ 
Ἰησοῦ. Many writers (including Hefele, zz /oc., Alford, Harless, 
and, less decidedly, Westcott and Robertson) render this ‘in all 
his Epistle,” viz. to you, or “πὶ every part of his Epistle.” But 
this is untenable. For, in the first place, it is ungrammatical ; 
certainly no example has been produced which is quite parallel. 
Hefele adduces πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα, Matt. 11. 3 ;-and πᾶς Ἰσραήλ, 
Rom. xi. 26; but these are proper names. Other supposed 
parallels are examined by Lightfoot, zz oc. Two have been 
relied on by later writers, viz. Acts xvll. 26, ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου 
τῆς γῆς, and Aristot. £7/. Vic. 1. 13. 7, πᾶν σῶμα. But neither are 
these analogous. ‘There is only one πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς, hence this 
term is used (not, indeed, with πᾶν) without the article in the 


x THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [ὃ 2 


Sept. (Gen. iv. 14, vi. 7, xi. 8, mp. πάσης τῆς γῆς ΞΘ [λιῖκα xxi. 35). 
It is easy to understand, then, how it should come to be so used 
even with πᾶν preceding. 

At first sight πᾶν σῶμα in Aristotle, Zc, seems to present a 
closer parallel. The passage runs: δεῖ τὸν πολιτικὸν εἰδέναι πῶς τὰ 
περὶ ψυχῆς" ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν ὀφθαλμοὺς θεραπεύοντα, καὶ πᾶν σῶμα ; 7.6. 
he that heals the eyes must know the whole body. But σῶμα in 
the abstract sense, 2.6. as meaning, not this or that individual body, 
but the body as opposed to the soul, is used by Aristotle without 
the article, just as ψυχή is also used (see, for example, 7h. Με. 1. ὃ. 
2; 6. 12, etc.). In this particular instance the omission of the 
article was, in fact, necessary to precision ; for πᾶν τὸ σῶμα might 
mean the body of him whose eyes were to be healed, whereas 
what is intended is the human body generally. Since, therefore, 
πᾶν σῶμα here does not mean the whole individual body, it 
furnishes no parallel to the alleged meaning of πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ, and 
we are compelled to abide by the rendering “‘in every Epistle.” 

But, in the second place, the proposed rendering gives a 
wholly unsuitable sense. The fact of St. Paul devoting a letter to 
the Ephesians would deserve mention, but to what purpose to say, 
‘in his whole letter to you he mentions you”? We do not speak 
of making mention of a man to himself, nor did the Greeks so use 
μνημονεύειν. But even if this were possible, it would be, as Light- 
foot says, ‘‘singularly unmeaning, if not untrue,” of the present 
Epistle. Alford, indeed, thinks the expression fully justified, and 
quotes Pearson, who says: “Tota enim Epistola ad Ephesios 
scripta, ipsos Ephesios, eorumque honorem et curam, maxime 
spectat, et summe honorificam eorum memoriam ad posteros trans- 
mittit. In aliis epistolis apostolus eos ad quos scribit saepe 
acriter objurgat aut parce laudat. Hic omnibus modis perpetuo 
se Ephesiis applicat,” etc. All this if said of the Ephesians in a 
letter addressed to others might be called μνημονεύειν, although 
this would be a strangely weak word to use. Does not “acriter 
objurgare”” involve μνημονεύειν as much as “laudare”? But the 
peculiarity of the Epistle is that nothing is mentioned or even 
alluded to which is personal to the Ephesians. 

Kiene (Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 286) understands by πάσῃ 
ἐπιστολῇ “an entire letter,” but without attempting to show the 
possibility of this rendering. But can we say that St. Paul 
mentions the Ephesians “in every letter”? Allowing for a 
natural hyperbole we may answer, Yes. Ephesus and_ the 
Christians there are referred to either alone or with others in Rom. 
XVi. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi..8, 19; 2\Cor.1..8sq5 and 1 aude eau 

The longer recension of Ignatius has ὃς πάντοτε ἐν ταῖς δεήσεσιν 
αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει ὑμῶν. The Armenian Version reads μνημονεύω, 
which would be true to fact, for in five out of the six other 


~ 


§ 2] OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE xi 


Epistles, Ignatius does mention the Ephesians. But the authority 
is insufficient. 

Accepting, then, the usual reading and the grammatical render- 
ing, we cannot infer from the words that Ignatius knew the Epistle 
as addressed to the Ephesians. Rather they would suggest the 
opposite conclusion. For, when Ignatius desired to remind his 
readers of St. Paul’s regard for them, it would be strange that he 
should only refer to the mention of them in other Epistles, and 
not at all to that which had been specially addressed to them. 

The word συμμύσται has been thought to have been suggested 
by Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, 4, 9, etc.; but this is very precarious, for St. 
Paul uses no expression there which would suggest Ignatius’ word, 
and συμμύστης is used by Origen (x Jes. Naue Hom. 7, i. p. 
413), “ipse (Paulus) enim est symmystes Christi,” and by Hip- 
polytus (¢z Dan. p. 174, Lagarde). 

The question as to Ignatius’ knowledge and reception of the 
Epistle is quite a different one. In the address of his Epistle he 
has several expressions which may have been suggested by the early 
verses of our Epistle: τῇ εὐλογημένῃ, πληρώματι, προωρισμένῃ πρὸ 
αἰώνων εἶναι... εἰς δόξαν, ἐκλελεγμένην, ἐν θελήματι τοῦ πατρός. 
More certain is cap. 1., μιμηταὶ ὄντες τοῦ Θεοῦ, borrowed apparently 
from Eph. v. 1, and Polyc. 5, ἀγαπᾶν τὰς συμβίους ὡς ὁ Κύριος τὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν, a reminiscence of Eph. v. 29. In the following ch. vi. 
the reference to the Christian’s πανοπλία was probably suggested 
by Eph. vi. τι, although the parts of the armour are differently 
assigned. Also Ign. 221. c. 9, ὡς ὄντες λίθοι ναοῦ πατρός, ἡτοιμασ- 
μένοι εἰς οἰκοδομὴν Θεοῦ πατρός (Eph. il. 20-22). 

Contemporaneous with Ignatius is the Lvstle of Polycarp to 
the Philippians. It contains two quotations from the present 
Epistle in cap. 1., χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι, οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, from Eph. 
11. 5, 8, 9; and c. 12 (of which the Greek is lost), “ut his scripturis 
dictum est, zrascimini et nolite peccare et, sol non occidat super 
tracundiam vestram, from Eph. iv. 26. Some commentators, indeed, 
suppose that Ignatius here is, independently of our Epistle, making 
the same combination of two O.T. texts, or that both adopt 
a combination made by some earlier writer. That is to say, they 
regard “let not the sun go down on your wrath” as a quotation 
from Deut. xxiv. 13, 15, verses which have nothing in common 
with this but the reference to the sun going down, for what they 
deal with is the hire of a poor man and the pledge taken from the 
poor. That two writers should independently connect the words 
in Deut. with those in Ps. iv., changing in the former “his hire” 
into “your anger,” is beyond the bounds of probability. As to 
the difficulty which is found in Polycarp citing the N.T. as 
Scripture, perhaps the explanation may be that, recognising the 
first sentence as a quotation from the O.T., he hastily concluded 


xii THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [8.2 


that the second was so also. For in the context immediately 
preceding he confesses that his acquaintance with the Scriptures 
was not equal to that of the Philippians. This is at least more 
probable than an accidental coincidence. 

Hermas, Mand. 111., has, ἀληθείαν ἀγάπα καὶ πᾶσα ἀληθεία ἐκ 
τοῦ στόματός σου ΠῚ doubtless from Eph. ἵν. 25% 29. A 
little after we have, μηδὲ λύπην ἐ ἐπάγειν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ σεμνῷ καὶ 
ἀληθεῖ; cf. 2b. ver. 30. Again, Sim. 1x. 13, ἔσονται εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα καὶ 
ἕν σῶμα, and 17, pia πίστις αὐτῶν ἐγένετο, seem to be reminiscences 
of Eph. iv. 4, 5. 

The Valentinians also amoree the Epistle, iii. 4-18, as γράφη 
(Hipp. PAzZos. vi. 34). 

By the close of the second century the Epistle was universally 
received as St. Paul’s. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. v. 2. 3, has, καθὼς ὃ 
μακάριος ἸΙαῦλός φησιν, ἐν τῇ πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους ἐπιστολῇ" ὅτι μέλη 
ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ 
(Eph. v. 30). Also i. 8. 5, he similarly quotes Eph. v. 13. Clem. 
Alex. Strom. iv. ὃ 65, having quoted τ Cor. xi. 3 and Gal. v. τό sqq., 
with φησὶν 6 ἀπόστολος, adds, διὸ καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς “Eqecious γράφει" 
ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ, κιτ.λ., Eph. v. 21-25. Also 
Paed. 1. ὃ 18, ὃ ἀπόστολος ἐπιστέλλων πρὸς Κορινθίους φησὶν (2 Cor. 
ΧΙ. 2)... σαφέστατα δὲ ᾿Πφεσίοις γράφων... λέγων: μέχρι καταν- 
τήσωμεν οἱ πάντες, κιτ.λ., Eph. iv. 13-15. ‘Tertullian and Marcion 
have already been quoted. 

From this evidence it is all but certain that the Epistle already 
existed about 95 A.p. (Clement), quite certain that it existed about 
I1o A.D. (Ignatius, Polycarp). 

Not to be overlooked as an item of evidence of the genuine- 
ness of the Epistle is the mention, in Col. iv. 16, of an Epistle 
“from Laodicea.” This has been already referred to for a different 
purpose. We learn from it that St. Paul wrote at or about the 
same time, besides the Epistles to Philemon and to the Colossians, 
an Epistle of a more or less encyclical character, not addressed to the 
Laodiceans, else it would be cailed the Epistle ‘‘to Laodicea,” or 
“to the Laodiceans,” and, for a similar reason, not addressed by 
name to any particular Church or Churches. It must also be 
considered highly probable that it was conveyed by the same 
messenger, Tychicus, for it was not every day that St. Paul would 
have the opportunity of a disciple travelling from Rome (or even 
from Caesarea) to Laodicea. It is hardly credible that a Church 
which carefully preserved and copied the unimportant private letter 
to Philemon, should allow this important encyclical to be lost. 
There was a further guarantee of its preservation in the fact that 
this did not depend on one single Church. Now, here we have 
an Epistle which satisfies these conditions ; it is in some sort at 
least an encyclical letter ; according to the best evidence, it was 


δ" 


᾿ς 


§ 2] OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE xiii 


not addressed to a particular Church, and indirectly it purports to 
have been written about the same time and conveyed by the same 
messenger, as the Epp. to the Colossians and to Philemon, This 
would amount to nothing if there were reason to suspect a forgery 
suggested by Col. iv. 16. But this is entirely out of the question, 
tor there is not the slightest indication in the Epistle which could 
lead an ordinary reader to that identification. So effectually, 
indeed, was it concealed, that with the exception of the heretic 
Marcion, it does not seem to have occurred to any ancient writer ; 
and on what ground Marcion judged that the Epistle was to the 
Laodiceans we do not know. We do know, however, that his 
adoption of that title did not lead others to think of Col. iv. 16, 
and even his own disciples seem not to have followed him.! 

Whatever probability belongs to this identification (and the 
reasons alleged against it have little weight), goes directly to con- 
firm the genuineness of the Epistle, and must in all fairness be 
taken into account. As the Canon of Marcion must have been 
drawn up before the middle of the second century, there is 
evidence of the general reception of the Epistle as St. Paul’s at 
that period. 

Many of the ablest opponents of the genuineness admit the 
early date of composition and reception of the Epistle. Ewald 
assigned it to about 75-80 a.p. Scholten also to 80. Holtzmann, 
Mangold, and others to about 100. The late date 140, assigned 
by some of the earlier critics, is irreconcilable with the evidence 
of its early recognition. 

Internal Evidence.— Objections. The genuineness of the Epistle 
appears to have been first questioned by Schleiermacher (who 
suggested that Tychicus was commissioned to write it) and Usteri ; 
but the first to examine the internal evidence in detail was De 
Wette. His conclusion was that it is a verbose amplification 
(“‘wortreiche Erweiterung”) of the Epistle to the Colossians, and 
in style shows a notable falling off from that of St. Paul. Against 
the subjective element of this estimate may be placed the judg- 
ment of Chrysostom, Erasmus, Grotius, and Coleridge. Chrysos- 
tom says: “‘ The Epistle overflows with lofty thoughts and doctrines 
. . . Things which he scarcely anywhere else utters, he here ex- 
pounds.” ὑψηλῶν σφόδρα γέμει τῶν νοημάτων: ἃ yap μηδαμοῦ 
ἐφθέγξατο, ταῦτα ἐνταῦθα δηλοῖ, Erasmus (although noting the 
difference in style, etc.): “Idem in hac epistola Pauli fervor, 
eadem profunditas, idem omnino spiritus ac pectus.” He adds: 


1 This is Lightfoot’s explanation of the perplexing passage in Epiphanius 
(Haeres. xlii.). Epiphanius speaks of Marcion as recognising the Ep. to the 
Eph., and also portions of the so-called Ep. to the Laodiceans. He blames 
Marcion for citing Eph. iv. 5, not from Eph., but from the Ep. to the 
Laodiceans. See Lightfoot, Bzb/ical Essays, p. 383. 


X1V THE EPISTLE, TO) THE EPHESIANS [$2 


“Verum non alibi sermo hyperbatis, anapodotis, aliisque incom- 
moditatibus molestior, sive id interpretis fuit, quo fuit usus in hac, 
sive sensuum sublimitatem sermonis facultas non est assequnta. 
Certe stilus tantum dissonat a caeteris Pauli epistolis ut alterius 
videri possit nisi pectus atque indoles Paulinae mentis hanc prossus 
ili vindicaret.” Grotius: ‘ Rerum sublimitatem adaequam verbis 
sublimioribus quam ulla unquam habuit lingua humana.” Coleridge 
(Zable Ta/k): “The Epistle to the Ephesians . . . is one of the 
divinest compositions of man. It embraces every doctrine of 
Christianity ;—first, those doctrines peculiar to Christianity, and 
then those precepts common to it with natural religion.” Others 
have also judged that, as compared with Colossians, it is in system 
‘far deeper, and more recondite, and more exquisite” (Alford). 
De Wette was answered by Ltinemann, Meyer, and others. 
Some of the critics who followed De Wette went beyond him, 
. rejecting the Ep. to the Colossians also, which he fully accepted, 
and assigning to both a much later date. Schwegler and Baur, 
finding in the Epistle traces of Gnostic and Montanist language 
and ideas, ascribed both Epistles to the middle of the second 
century. Similarly Hilgenfeld, who, however, attributed the Epistles 
to distinct authors. ‘The fallacy of these latter speculations has 
been shown by Holtzmann, who has devoted an entire volume to 
the criticism of the two Epistles (A7v7tk der Epheser und Kolosser- 
briefe auf Grund einer Analyse thres Verwandtschaftsverhalinisses, 
Leipz. 1872). His conclusion is that the writer of the present 
Epistle had before him a genuine, but much shorter, Epistle to 
the Colossians, on which he founded his encyclical, and that the 
same writer subsequently interpolated the Epistle to the Colossians. 
(This was first suggested by Hitzig, 1870.) Soden (in two articles 
in the Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. 1885, 1887) maintained the genuine- 
ness of Col. with the exception of nine verses, and in his Comm. 
he withdraws this exception, regarding only 1. 164, 17 as a gloss. 
Lastly, the most recent writer on the subject, Jiilicher (£77- 
leitung in das Neue Testament, 1894), will only go so far as to say 
that our Epistle cannot with certainty be reckoned as St. Paul’s, 
while neither can its genuineness be unconditionally denied. 
Objections from the Language of the Epistle.—Let us first notice 
the argument from the language of the Epistle. Holtzmann re- 
marks, as favourable to the Pauline authorship, that it contains 
eighteen words not found elsewhere in the N.T. except in St. 
Paul. apa οὖν occurs eight times in Romans, and besides only in 
Gal. i. and 2 Thess. and Eph. each once; διό, a favourite of St. 
Paul, occurs in Eph. five times (not in Col.). But the favourable 
impression created by this is outweighed by the peculiarities found 
in the Epistle. It is indeed admitted that the existence of ἅπαξ 
λεγόμενα would be no argument against the genuineness, if only 


§ 2] OH THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE XV 


they were not so numerous. ‘There are, in fact, 42 words which 
are a. X. (in the N.T.), not including αἰχμαλωτεύειν, which is in a 
quotation. (Holtzmann reckoned only 37, but Thayer gives 42.') 
This number, however, is not greater in proportion than that in 
admitted Epistles of St. Paul. Romans contains 100 (neglecting 
quotations) ; 1 Cor. 108; 2 Cor. 95; Gal. 33; Phil. 41 (Col. has 
38). The percentage is, in fact, rather less in our Epistle (see 
Robertson, Dict. of Bible, i. 954a, note). It is, indeed, fair in such 
a comparison to take account of St. Paul’s vocabulary rather than 
that of the N.T. generally. Accordingly, Holtzmann notes that 
there are here 39 words which, though occurring elsewhere in the 
N.T., are not found in St. Paul (the Pastoral Epp. and Col. are, 
of course, not counted). In Col. there are 15. Some of these, 
indeed, are such common words, that it is somewhat surprising 
that St. Paul has not used them elsewhere, such as ἄγνοια, ἀπατάω, 
δῶρον, φρόνησις, ὕψος, to which we may add, though not common, 
σωτήριον, εὔσπλαγχνος. But then, each of these occurs only once, 
and hence they cannot be regarded as indications of a different 
writer. Of the other words that have been noted as peculiar, 
some belong to the description of the Christian’s armour, and for 
these there would be no obvious place except in connexion with 
a similar figure ; while others, such as καταρτισμός, προσκαρτέρησις, 
ὁσιότης, cannot properly be reckoned as peculiar, since in other 
Epistles we find καταρτίζω, κατάρτισες, προσκαρτερεῖν, ὁσίως. So also, 
although ἄνοιξις does not occur elsewhere, ἄνοιξις τοῦ στόματος, 
vi. 19, is parallel to 2 Cor. Vi. 11, τὸ στόμα ἡμῶν dvéwye. Even 
without making these allowances, there is little difference between 
this Epistle and that to the Galatians, for example, in this respect. 
The latter Epistle, which is rather shorter, contains, in addition to 
32 ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, 42 words which, though occurring elsewhere in 
the N.T., are not found in the other Epistles of St. Paul. Such 
calculations are, indeed, futile, except in connexion with words so 
frequently used as to be characteristic of the writer. 

More weight is to be given to the principle of the objection, 
that words are used here to express certain ideas which St. Paul is 
in the habit of expressing differently, and, again, that words used 
by him are here employed with a different meaning. But when 
we come to the instances we find them few, and for the most part 
unimportant. Of the first class, De Wette mentions τὰ ἐπουράνια 
for “heaven” (five times) ; τὰ πνευματικά for “spirits”; διάβολος 
twice (elsewhere only in I and 2 im:); κοσμοκράτωρ, σωτήριον. 
Soden adds, as favourite words of the writer, μεθοδεία (twice), and 
δέσμιος (twice). These, with τὰ ἐπουράνια and διάβολος, he says, 
it is strange not to find slipping from St. Paul’s pen elsewhere. As 
to δέσμιος, however, it actually occurs in Philemon, and Holtz- 

1 See list at end of the Introduction. 


xvi THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [8.2 


mann had already pointed out that it was not to be expected 
except in Epistles written when St. Paul was a prisoner. As to 
διάβολος, of which much has been made because St. Paul elsewhere 
uses Σατανᾶς, if the writer of the Acts, or of the Fourth Gospel, 
and other N.T. writers, could use Σατανᾶς and διάβολος indiffer- 
ently, why might not Paul use the former in his earlier Epistles, 
and the latter twice in this? The difference is only that between 
the Hebrew and the Greek forms, and is analogous to that between 
Πέτρος and Κηφᾶς, of which the former is used twice and the latter 
four times in the Epistle to the Galatians. Again, although τὰ 
ἐπουράνια (which is not = “the heavens ”) is not found elsewhere in 
St. Paul, the adjective occurs with the meaning “heavenly” 

1 Cor. xv. 40, 48, 49, and in Phil. 11. τὸ. Other un-Pauline ex- 
pressions are found in τὰ θελήματα, ai διάνοιαι, πρὸ καταβολῆς 
κόσμου, φωτίζειν as a function of the apostle, ὁ ἄρχων τῆς ἐξουσίας 
τοῦ ἀέρος, ὃ Θεὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (i. 17. 3); πνεῦμα 
τοῦ νοός, 7) ἁγία ἐκκλησία (ver. 27, not, however, in this form) ; of 
ἅγιοι ἀπόστολοι καὶ προφῆται, ἴστε γινώσκοντες, δίδοναί τινα τί (i. 22, 
rh τὴ; ἀγαθὸς πρός τι (iv. 29); ἀγαπᾶν τὸν Κύριον (Paul has ay. 
TOV Θεόν), ἀ ἀγαπᾶν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, of Christ; εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ 

αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων. 

It is, for the most part, only by their number that these and 
similar instances can be supposed to carry weight as an objection 
to the Pauline authorship; two or three, however, are somewhat 
striking. On ὃ Θεὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, see the note. It is certainly 
an unexpected expression, but it is one which no later imitator, 
holding such lofty views of Christ as are here expressed, would 
have ventured on without Pauline precedent. It has its parallel in 
John xx. 17. Again, although the expression ὃ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησε 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν taken by itself sounds peculiar, it is not so when we 
find that it is suggested by the preceding words, ot ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε 
Tas γυναῖκας καθὼς καί, κιτ.λ. 

The phrase which seems to create the greatest difficulty is τοῖς 
ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις Kat προφῆταις. It is said that this, especially 
when compared with Col. i. 26, is strongly suggestive of a later 
generation which set the apostles and prophets (of the new dis- 
pensation) on a lofty pedestal as objects of veneration. Some of 
those critics who accept the Epistle as genuine have suggested that 
we have to do with a gloss (the whole or, at least, the latter half 
of ver. 5, Reuss; the word ἁγίοις, Jiilicher), or a dislocation of 
the text (Robertson), ἁγίοις being the mediate or general (ἐφανε- 
ρώθη, Col.), the ἀπ. x. mp. the immediate or special (ἀπεκαλύφθη) 
recipients of the revelation. Lachmann and Tregelles put a 
camma after ἁγίοις, so that ἀπ. x. mp. is in apposition with ἁγίοις. 
So fac as the difficulty is in the writer’s application of the term 
ἁγίοις, it appears to be due very much to the importation into 


§ 2] OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE xvii 


ἁγίοις of the modern notion of holiness (see note). However this 
‘may be, the objection to the genuineness drawn from this word is 
deprived of all force by the words which follow presently in ver. 8, 
ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων. It is quite incredible that a 
writer otherwise so successful in assuming the character of St. 
Paul, should here in the same breath forget his part and (as it is 
thought) exaggerate it. The same consideration, in part at least, 
applies to the other difficulty found in the words, viz. that they 
represent the apostles as all recognising the principle of the calling 
of the Gentiles,—a principle which St. Paul elsewhere (and here 
also) claims as specially his gospel. The apostles are spoken of 
collectively also in 1 Cor. xv. 7 ; and as they had cordially assented 
to St. Paul’s teaching as to the admission of the Gentiles (Gal. 
ii. 9), it is quite natural that he should speak of it here as revealed 
“to the apostles.” 

As examples of Pauline words used in a new sense, are quoted 
μυστήριον, οἰκονομία, περιποίησις. As to the first, there is really no 
difference between its meaning here and elsewhere in St. Paul; or 
if the sense in ver. 32 is thought to be different, that is a difference 
within this Epistle itself, in which the word occurs five times in its 
usual sense. οἰκονομία is found (besides Col. i. 25) in 1 Cor. 
ix. 17 of St. Paul’s own stewardship, while in Eph. it is used of the 
ordering of the fulness of the times (i. 10), or of the grace of God 
(iii. 2), or of the mystery, etc. (ill. 9). Here, again, so little ground 
is there for assuming any serious difference in meaning, that in 
the last two passages the meaning “stewardship” (RV. marg.) 
is perfectly suitable. Again, περιποίησις in 1. 14 15 said to be 
concrete, whereas in 1 Thess. v. 9, 2 Thess. 11. 14, it is abstract. 
Admitting this (which is questioned), the difference is parallel to 
that, for example, in the meaning of ἀποκάλυψις in τ Cor. xiv. 26 
and. 1 7. 

In reference to these objections, and some others that have to 
be mentioned, it is important to remember that we are not dealing 
with an anonymous work. There are many points of difference 
which in such a case might be used with effect against the Pauline 
authorship, but which put on a different aspect when we consider 
that the Epistle makes a distinct claim to be the work of St. Paul,— 
so that, if not genuine, it is the work of a writer who designed that 
it should be mistaken for the work of that apostle,—and when we 
add to this the fact that it was received as such from the earliest 
times. For a writer of such ability as the author, and one so 
familiar with the writings of St. Paul, would take care to avoid, at 
least, obvious deviations from the style and language of the author 
whom he is imitating. From this point of view, not only ἅπαξ 
λεγόμενα, but still more the use of new expressions for Pauline 


ideas, instead of offering an argument against the Pauline author- 
b 


xviii THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [§2 


ship, become arguments against forgery. If, indeed, actual contra- 
dictions or inconsistencies could be shown, it would be different ; 
but they cannot. 

There are, it is true, at first sight, differences in the point of view 
taken in this Epistle and in others of St. Paul; but these have 
been exaggerated. For example, when in v. 1 the expression τέκνα 
ἀγαπητά occurs, Holtzmann remarks that this is elsewhere used by 
St. Paul, not to urge his readers as beloved children to imitate 
their Father, God, but because they owed their conversion to 
himself, so that he was himself their father (1 Cor. iv. 14, 17, cf. 
2 Tim. i. 2). Yet the expression is quite naturally led up to here. 
“Forgive, for God has forgiven; therefore imitate God, whose 
children ye are.” Addressing those to whom he was a stranger, 
he could not call on them to imitate himself (1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1), 
which, moreover, here, where the question is of forgiveness, would 
be an impossible bathos ; nor could he call them his own children. 
As to the expression “children of God,” we have a parallel in 
Rom. vill. 16, ὅτι ἐσμὲν τέκνα Θεοῦ. 

Again, 7) λεγομένη ἀκροβυστία, ἡ λεγομένη περιτομή (ii. 11), taken 
by themselves, may seem to deny any real significance to circum- 
cision (contrary to Rom. iii. 1; Phil. iii. 5; Col. ii. 11, 13); yeta 
closer consideration will show that it is not so. ‘Ye who are 
contemptuously called uncircumcision by those who call themselves 
the circumcision, a circumcision in the flesh only (note the 
addition ἐν σαρκί), as if the mere fleshly circumcision had any 
spiritual value.” Not only does the sense of the whole passage 
agree with Rom. ii. 26-29 (as Holtzmann allows), but the form of 
expression is natural as coming from the writer who in Phil. iit. 2 
uses the strong and scornful word κατατομή, adding ἡμεῖς yap 
ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι Θεοῦ λατρεύοντες, κιτ.λ.: to which we 
may add, for those who accept Colossians, Col. 11. 11. Holtzmann, 
indeed, thinks that Paul would not say, 7 λεγομένη ἀκροβυστία, he 
being himself one of the Jews who so designated them (Rom. 
ll. 26, 24, iii. 30, iv. 9; Gal. i. 7). . But this comespamedseno 
Col. ili, 11, οὐκ ἔνε. . . περιτομὴ καὶ axpoBvoria. (Compare the 
less forcible οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει, κιπελ., Gal. v. 6, Vi. 15.) 

Holtzmann considers this way of speaking of circumcision as 
belonging to the general view of the Law taken in this Epistle, as 
merely typical. It is not spoken of, says v. Soden, as having a 
religious or moral significance, as παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν, or as 
working κατάρα, but only in its formal character as the sum of 
ἐντολαὶ ἐν δόγμασιν, its content being left out of view. Compare, 
on the contrary, Rom. ix. 4; Gal. v. 23 (where, however, we have 
νόμος, not ὁ νόμος). Its significance consists in its causing a 
separation and even hostility between Jews and Gentiles. But 
this is not a greater difference than that between the ideas of a 


89 OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE XIX 


παιδαγωγός and a source of κατάρα, which we find within one 
epistle, that to the Galatians. 

Objections from the line of thought in the Epistle.—It 15 said, 
further, that the whole view of the Church as regards the union of 
Jews and Gentiles is peculiar ; St. Paul never represents it as the 
object or even an object of Christ’s work to bring into one Jews 
and Gentiles (ii. 13-18, 19-22, 11]. 5 sqq., iv. 7-16). This leads 
us further ; we notice that the writer never speaks of local Churches, 
but only of the (one) Church. This has been supposed to indicate 
that he wrote at a time when the several local Churches were 
drawing together in resistance to a common danger, and _ binding 
themselves together by a single organisation. But the Church 
here is not represented as made up of individual Churches, but of 
individual men; nor is there any mention of external unity or 
common organisation. Nor is the conception of one ‘‘ Church,” 
which we find here, quite new. Not to mention passages where 
St. Paul speaks of himself as formerly persecuting “the Church of 
GodevG Cor x9) ;- Gal. i. 13; Phill in. 6); we have ‘im 1 Cor: 
xii. 28, ἔθετο ὃ Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, K.t.A. We 
may compare also Acts xx. 28, τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιή- 
σατο, κιτιλ. In Col. we have 7 ἐκκλησία in the same sense, as the 
universal Church (i. 18, 24), although it is also used of local 
Churches (iv. 15, 16). The encyclical character of the present 
Epistle sufficiently accounts for the predominance of the former 
view here. There is, however, no inconsistency in this advance 
upon the earlier conception. It is, indeed, remarkable that in 
Eph. the thought of the unity of the Church is so dominant that 
Christ’s work is represented as having immediate reference to it 
ya than to individuals (compare v. 25-27, 29, 32, with Gal. 
li. 20); of this He is the Saviour (ver. 23) ; it is this that He has 
need by His offering of Himself (ver. 26). But it is essential 
to observe that all this occurs, not in an exposition of the nature of 
Christ’s work, but in illustration of the duties of husbands to their 
wives, Any reference to His work in relation to individual men 
would have been entirely irrelevant. That reference comes in 
naturally in i. 7, v. 2, ii. 16 ff. But the first two passages, it is 
said, appear to be only verbal reminiscences of St. Paul. It is, 
however, much easier to conceive St. Paul writing as in vv. 25-32, 
than to suppose it the work of another who wishes to be mistaken 
for him. It is no doubt very remarkable that the whole circle of 
thought which in St. Paul has its centre in the death of Christ, 
here falls into the background. In i. 15-11. το, where the resurrec- 
tion is twice mentioned, and the whole work of redemption dwelt 
on, the death is not mentioned. So also i. 11-14, ili. 1-21. In 
fact, with the exception of i. 7 (from Col. i. 14), it is only incident- 
ally referred to as a pattern, and then with remarkable differences 


XX THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [§ 2 


from St. Paul, that being attributed to Christ which is elsewhere 
attributed to God. (Yet, on the other hand, in iv. 32 it is God in 
Christ who is said to forgive, while in Col. ii. 13 it is Christ who 
forgives.) The only place in which the death of Christ is dealt 
with in greater detail is ii. 14--τ6 ; and there the interest is not in 
the reconciliation of individuals and the forgiveness of their sins, 
but in this, that the Law, and with it the enmity between Jew and 
Gentile, are removed. These and other differences that have been 
pointed out are no doubt striking, but they involve no incon- 
sistencies ; they are only developments of ideas of which the germ 
is found in St. Paul’s other writings. 

The representation of Christ as the Head of the Body, which 
is the Church, is common to Eph. and Col., and therefore cannot 
be alleged against the genuineness of the former by any who admit 
the latter. Elsewhere, when St. Paul uses the figure of the body, 
the whole body is said to be in Christ (Rom. xii. 4, 5), or to be 
Christ (1 Cor. xii. 12), and the head appears only as one member 
among many (7d. 21). But in those cases the point to be illus- 
trated was the mutual relation of the members of the Church, and 
there is nothing inconsistent in the modification of the figure which 
we find in these Epp. 

Again, as to the Person and Office of Christ, we have in both 
Epp. a notable advance beyond the earlier Epistles, as in Col. 
i. τό ff., “in Him were all things created, in the heaven, and 
upon the earth .. . all things have been created through ‘Him, 
and unto Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all 
things consist.” But we have at least the germ of this in 1 Cor. 
viii. 6, εἷς Κύριος Ιησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἡμεῖς 
δι αὐτοῦ. In Eph., however, we have added to this the further 
thought that things in heaven as well as on earth have part in the 
reconciliation effected by Him (Eph. 1. ro) ; and all this is referred 
to a purpose of the Divine will directed towards Christ Himself 
from the beginning. 

Once more, the second coming of Christ has fallen into the 
background, and does not appear to have a part in bringing about 
the fulfilment of the promised blessings. Rather does the writer 
seem to anticipate a series of αἰῶνες ἐπερχόμενοι. But, as Hort 
observes, “nothing was more natural than that a change like this 
should come over St. Paul’s mind, when year after year passed 
away, and still there was no sign of the Lord’s coming, and when 
the spread of the faith through the Roman Empire, and the results 
which it was producing, would give force to all such ways of think- 
ing as are represented by the image of the leaven leavening the 
lump” (Prolegomena, p. 142). 

Paley on the Internal Evidence.—Paley in his Horae Paulinae 
has replied by anticipation to some, at least, of the objections to 


§ 2] OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE ΧΧΙ 


the genuineness of the Epistle, and has added some positive argu- 
ments which deserve attention. He remarks that “ Whoever writes 
two letters or two discourses nearly upon the same subject and at 
no great distance of time, but without any express recollection of 
what he had written before, will find himself repeating some 
sentences in the very order of the words in which he had already 
used them; but he will more frequently find himself employing 
some principal terms, with the order inadvertently changed, or 
with the order disturbed by the intermixture of other words and 
phrases expressive of ideas rising up at the time; or in many 
instances repeating, not single words, nor yet whole sentences, but 
parts and fragments of sentences. Of all these varieties the exam- 
ination of our two Epistles will furnish plain examples; and I 
should rely upon this class of instances more than upon the last ; 
because, although an impostor might transcribe into a forgery 
entire sentences and phrases, yet the dislocation of words, the 
partial recollection of phrases and sentences, the intermixture of 
new terms and new ideas with terms and ideas before used, which 
will appear in the examples that follow, and which are the natural 
properties of writings produced under the circumstances in which 
these Epistles are represented to have been composed, would not, 
I think, have occurred to the invention of a forger; nor, if they 
had occurred, would they have been so easily executed. This 
studied variation was a refinement in forgery, which, I believe, did 
not exist ; or if we can suppose it to have been practised in the 
instances adduced below, why, it may be asked, was not the same 
art exercised upon those which we have collected in the preceding 
Glass |iviza phe i. 77 — Col. i. 14; Eph: 1. ro—Col. 1:20; Eph: 
1Π 5 Coli 25. ΡΠ vy, 19— Col.) im; 16; and) Eph. vi 22 = 
Col. iv. 8].” Of the second class he specifies Eph. i. 19, ii. 5, 
which, if we take away the parentheses, leaves a sentence almost 
the same in terms as Col. 11. 12, 13; but it is in Eph. twice inter- 
rupted by incidental thoughts which St. Paul, as his manner was, 
enlarges upon by the way, and then returns to the thread of his 
discourse. 

Amongst internal marks of genuineness, Paley specifies the 
frequent yet seemingly unaffected use of πλοῦτος used metaphoric- 
ally as an augmentative of the idea to which it happens to be sub- 
joined,—a figurative use familiar to St. Paul, but occurring in no 
other writer in the N.T. except once in Jas. i. 5, “ Hath not God 
chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith ?”, where it is manifestly 
suggested by the antithesis. (It occurs in 1 Tim. vi. 18.) 

“There is another singularity in St. Paul’s style which, wherever 
it is found, may be deemed a badge of authenticity ; because, if it 
were noticed, it would not, I think, be imitated, inasmuch as it 
almost always produces embarrassment and interruption in the 


xxl THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [82 


reasoning. This singularity is a species of digression which may 
properly, I think (says Paley), be denominated going off at a word. 
It is turning aside from the subject upon the occurrence of some 
particular word, forsaking the train of thought then in hand, and 
entering upon a parenthetic sentence in which that word is the pre- 
vailing term.” An instance is 2 Cor. ii. 14, at the word ὀσμή 
(note vv. 15, 16). Another, 2 Cor. iii. 1, at ἐπιστολῶν, which 
gives birth to the following sentence, vv. 2, 3. A third is 2 Cor. 
111. 13, at the word κάλυμμα. The whole allegory, vv. 14-18, 
arises out of the occurrence of this word in v. 13, and in iv. t he 
resumes the proper subject of his discourse almost in the words 
with which he had left it, 

In Eph. we have two similar instances, viz. iv. 8-11, at the word 
ἀνέβη, and again, v. 13-15, at φῶς. 

Again, in Eph. iv. 2-4 and Col. iii. 12-15, we have the words 
ταπεινοφροσύνη, πρᾳότης, μακροθυμία, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων in the 
same order; ἀγάπη is also in both, but in a different connexion ; 
σύνδεσμος τῆς εἰρήνης answers to o. τῆς τελειότητος ; ἐκλήθητε ἐν Evi 
σώματι to ἕν σῶμα καθὼς καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν pia ἐλπίδι; yet is this 
similitude found in the midst of sentences otherwise very different. 

Eph. v. 6—8, Col. iii. 6-8, afford, says Paley, a specimen of that 
partial resemblance which is only to be met with where no imita- 
tion is designed, but where the mind, exercised upon the same 
subject, is left to the spontaneous return of such terms and phrases 
as, having been used before, may happen to present themselves 
again. ‘lhe sentiment of both passages is throughout alike: half 
of that sentiment, the denunciation of God’s wrath, is expressed in 
identical words ; the other half, viz. the admonition to quit their 
former conversation, in words entirely different. 

Eph. vi. 19, 20, furnishes, according to Paley’s very just remark, 
a coincidence (with the Acts) of that minute and less obvious 
kind which is of all others the most to be relied upon. It is the 
coincidence of πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει with Acts xxviii. 16. From the 
latter passage we learn that at Rome Paul was allowed to dwell by 
himself with one soldier that kept him. In such cases it was 
customary for the prisoner to be bound to the soldier by a single 
chain. 

Accordingly, in ver. 20 St. Paul says, τὴν ἅλυσιν ταύτην περικεῖμαι. 
It is to be observed that in the parallel passage in Col. the word 
used is δέομαι. A real prisoner might use either the general words 
δέομαι or ἐν δεσμοῖς, or the specific term. Paley, however, omits 
to notice the irony of πρεσβεύω ἐν ἀλύσει, to which the choice of 
the word is undoubtedly due. “Am an ambassador in chains” 
does not exactly express the force of the original, which is rather 
“fact as an ambassador in chains.” As Hort well remarks (p. 156), 
“the writer has in mind, not the mere general thought of being in 


§ 8] RELATION TO EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS xxiii 


bonds, but the visual image of an ambassador standing up to plead 
his sovereign’s cause, and wearing, strangest of contradictions, a 
fetter by way of official adornment.” ἐν δεσμοῖς would have meant 
“in prison.” 


3. RELATION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


It is impossible even to glance over these two Epistles without 
being struck by the many similarities, and even verbal coincidences, 
between them. On the other hand, the Epistle to the Ephesians 
differs markedly from its twin Epistle in the absence of contro- 
versial matter such as forms so important an element in the other. 
De Wette, admitting the genuineness of Col., thought it possible 
to account for the likeness by supposing that the writer of Eph. 
borrowed from the other Epistle. He gave a list of parallel 
passages (Zzn/. § 146a) as follows :— 


Eph. i. 7 : - (ΟΠ τῆς Eph. iv. 22f. . Col. iii. 8 ff. 
A ba 5 eet ZO "ὦ | ING BIG Ὁ δ᾿ ΠΩΣ 
5» 1. 15-17. . » 1. 3, 4 » lv.29 . 55» iil. 8, iv. Ὁ: 
oe ib ats} : sy ΡΥ Lees ΣΝ οἷς Spy ei teh 
ay ib en : το de LO; Pa ye ae Siero ta " 
peme 1522. Ἐπ Ue Spee ie Lort: a Wag 6 οὐδ, oly 5 
Ὄπ Ὁ ΠΩ Ε An eal ἃ 3) Va! 5 ΖΦ ΠΝ ὃ. 
op it & A bpp th Bh Ὁ We ἢ 5 5 fo. 1 5 
aj) tke 5 1 14. Ἐπ 1 © 5 ee eS Os 
ay le TO! ς 6 py tho Sp ΤΟΥ Ὁ Sap ote &: 
ΠΕ - τ 2,4: ὙΠ ἼΘΙ oe τ ΠῚ ΠΟ: 
py aby Σ - α΄ ΕΣ Woe gps 18s 
ap, = it) τὶ = Ἐκ gg. :. 20: A (Wes - eisai tills aL; 
ΤΠ ἢ 5 Go on 1b 2 SSL ee ΜΙ ἃ ἘΠ ἀν Bib 20). 
Ἐπ ολ ON. Ὁ a gg 1 27: δ vi. 4 : το ellis 2 
ἢ Ve a 5 Anns game Pap (05 = Vib Sus Ὁ τ» i Ae 
a hae ; 5 Slay ΠῚ. 9 δ᾽ Ὁ : sigan lveele 
Ne es eas Sees st silly ΤῊ Ὁ Vien LOuiy . 555» ἅν: 2Π- 
By > thie TRIS ess elle, 19. ὙΠῸ ΣΕ ς Sp ha oie 
ἐπε va TOy—. 5 pp ily Te 


Holtzmann in his Avitik der Epheser- und Kolosser-Briefe ex- 
amined the problem with great labour and minuteness. He 
argued strongly that in some of the parallels, the priority was on 
the side of Eph. The passages which he selected for detailed 
examination in support of this conten! on were, 1st, Eph. i. 4 (= 
(ΘΠ 1 22); 2110 Eph. 6.7 (—Col τῷ; 14); 3rd) Eph? mi: 7, 
Ὁ Ξ- Colt 26.11. 2) 04th, Eph. ΠῚ τῇ. 18, ἵν: τὸ, 1 26 (— 
(ΟῚ 20 1.5 7) Sth, ΒΡ τὸ τῷ (-- Col... 19) ; 6th, Eph. ἵν: 
22-24 (=Col. ii. 9, 10); and 7th, Eph. v. 19 (=Col. i. 16). 
(With respect to the last three he seems to have changed his 
mind before publishing his /zz/ectung.) His conclusion was that 
there existed an Epistle to the Colossians by St. Paul, which was 


᾿ 


Xxiv THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [$4 


taken by the writer of Eph. as the basis of his work, and that 
the same writer subsequently interpolated the Epistle to the 
Colossians. He conjectures that this writer was the same who 
added the final doxology to the Epistle to the Romans. 

In the introduction to the Epistle to the Colossians will be 
found a specimen of the result of his analysis of Colossians. The 
principal, indeed the only value of this part of his work is that 
it establishes the inadequacy of the more commonly accepted 
solution of the problem, namely, that Ephesians is simply a 
forgery based on Colossians. Some critics, however, such as 
Hausrath, Mangold, Pfleiderer, think that Holtzmann has at least 
indicated in what direction the solution is to be looked for. But 
all such attempts are attended with much greater difficulty than 
the traditional view. 


There is another difficulty in this theory, and one which, from _ 


a literary point of view, is really fatal. It is that the words and 
phrases supposed to be borrowed from Col. are introduced into 
different contexts, and yet so as to fit in quite naturally with their 
new surroundings. (See, above, the passages mentioned by 
Paley.) 

It may be asked, moreover, how is it that a writer so well 
acquainted with Pauline thought should have confined his borrow- 
ings almost exclusively to the Epistle to the Colossians, and that 
although the most characteristic element of that Epistle, its special 
polemic against the heretical teachers, seems to have had no 
interest for him. Indeed, it is strange how he succeeds in steering 
clear of all allusions to that subject. In the author of Col. this 
would be done unconsciously ; it is not so easy to account for an 
imitator doing it. 


§ 4. RELATION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 


The parallelisms between these two Epistles are so numerous 
that the Epistles may almost be compared throughout. The 
following comparison is chiefly from Holtzmann. After the 
address they begin thus— 


ce Levon ΤῈ EPH. i. 


3. εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς Kal πατὴρ τοῦ 3. εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ 
Κυρίου ἡμῶν Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ ἀναγεννή- Κυρίου ἡμῶν Inood Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογή- 
σας ἡμᾶς. σας ἡμᾶς. 


This commencement, however, is found also in 2 Cor. i. 3. 

Then follows in each a long passage (1 Pet. i. 5-13; Eph. 1. 
5-15) in which the alternation of participles and relative pronouns 
is the same in both until the transition to the succeeding period 


§ 4] RELATION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER ;.xxv 


is made in the one case by διό, in the other by διὰ τοῦτο. The 
substance of the passage in τ Pet. i. 3-5 corresponds with that of 
the following passage in Eph. (i. 18-20), the “hope” being 
emphasised in both, and its object being designated the κληρονομία, 
the connexion with the resurrection of Christ as its ground being 
the same, and in both the δύναμις Θεοῦ being put in relation to 
the πίστις. 
1 Pet. ii. 4-6 has much resemblance to Eph. ii. 18-22— 


ΤΕ 11: EPH. ii 
4. mpos ὃν προσερχόμενοι λίθον 18. δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγήν. 
ROUT Ore eine 19. . . . οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
5. καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδο- 20. ἘΠ ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ 
μεῖσθε, οἶκος πνευματικός. . . . ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ 
6. . . - λίθον ἀκρογωνιαῖον. Ἰησοῦ, κ.τ.λ. 


22... . συνοικοδομεῖσθε εἰς κατοι- 
κητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


1 Pet., however, is here citing Ps. cxviii. 22 and Isa. xxviii. 16, 
and the former passage may have been in St. Paul’s mind also. 
It had been applied by our Lord to Himself (Matt. xxi. 42), and 
is cited in St. Peter’s speech, Acts iv. τι. Holtzmann thinks the 
citation of Isa. xxviil. 16 was suggested to 1 Pet. by the ἀκρο- 
γωνιαῖον of Eph. 

1 Pet: mi. 18, we ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, reminds us of Eph. 
ie 18, δι αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, while the 
verses immediately following exhibit the ancient explanation of 
Eph. iv. 8-10. Then follows in 1 Pet. a striking parallel to Eph. 


1h, 2. ΟΣ 


1 PET. iii. EPH. i. 
22. ὅς ἐστιν ἐν dela τοῦ Θεοῦ πορευ- 20. ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς 
θεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν, ἐπουρανίοις. 
ὑποταγέντων αὐτῷ ἀγγέλων καὶ ἐξου- 21. ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξου- 
σιῶν καὶ δυναμέων. σίας καὶ δυνάμεως. .. 


22. καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν. 


Again, 1 Pet. 1. ro-12 and Eph. iii. 5, 10 are strikingly parallel. 
They both contain the thought found here only in the N.T., that 
the meaning of the prophecies was not clearly known to the pro- 
phets themselves, but has first become so to us— 


TEED. 1. EPH. iii. 
10. προφῆται. .. 5. ὃ ἑτέραις γενεαῖς οὐκ ἐγνωρίσθη 
II. ἐρευνῶντες εἰς τίνα. .. καιρὸν ... ws νῦν ἀπεκαλύφθη τοῖς . . « 
ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα. προφήταις ἐν πνεύματι. 
12. οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς, 10. ἵνα γνωρισθῇ viv... 


ἡμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη. 


Here 1 Pet. goes beyond Eph. in saying that the prophets 
themselves were made acquainted by revelation with their own 


XXVi THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [$4 


ignorance. (But on προφήταις in Eph. iii. 5 = New Test. prophets, 
see note.) 

τ Pet. 1. 20 and Eph. ili. g correspond in the same reference 
to the mystery ordained πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, and hitherto hidden, 
but now revealed. And as in Eph. iii. 10 the wise purpose of 
God is now made known to angelic powers, so in 1 Pet. i. 12 they 
desire to search into these things. 

These are but a selection from the parallelisms that have been 
indicated by Holtzmann and others. Some critics have explained 
them by the supposition that the writer of Eph. borrowed from 
1 Pet. (Hilgenfeld, Weiss). But, in fact, the latter Epistle has 
affinities to other Epistles of St. Paul, and especially to that to the 
Romans, with which it has many striking coincidences (see Salmon, 
Introduction, Lect. xxii., and Seufert in Hilgenfeld’s Zeztschrift, 
1874, p. 360). 

On the supposition that Eph. is genuine, and that St. Paul 
here borrowed from 1 Pet., we seem obliged to hold (as Weiss 
does) that in the other parallels the former was also the borrower. 
“Tmagine,” says Holtzmann, “the most original of all the N.T. 
writers, when composing the r2th chap. of his Ep. to the Romans, 
laboriously gleaning from 1 Pet. the exhortations which his own 
daily experience might have suggested to him, taking xi. 1 from 
1 Pet. ii. 5 stripped of its symbolic clothing, then xii. 2 borrowing 
συσχηματίζεσθε from τ Pet. 1. 14; next in ΧΙ. 3-8 expanding 
1, Pet. iv. τὸ; 117; taking xu. 9 out of.1 Pet. 1. 22; ΧΠ 10 ΠΟΤῚ 
τ Pet. 1: τὴ. etc. 

Seufert, adopting an incidental suggestion of Holtzmann, has 
argued at length that Eph. and 1 Pet. are by the same author, 
possibly the same who wrote the third Gospel and the Acts 
(Hilgenfeld’s Zectschrift, 1881, pp. 179, 332). It is not necessary 
to discuss this theory in detail, since it appears to have gained no 
adherents. It may suffice to quote Salmon’s remark, that the 
resemblances between 1 Pet. and Eph. are much less numerous 
and less striking than those between Ephesians and Colossians ; 
whereas, in order to establish Seufert’s theory, they ought to be 
very much stronger: “For we clearly can more readily recognise 
resemblances as tokens of common authorship in the case of two 
documents which purport to come from the same author, and 
which, from the very earliest times, have been accepted as so 
coming, than when the case is the reverse.” 

There remains the supposition that 1 Pet. borrowed from 
Ephesians. If the former be not genuine, there is, of course, no 
difficulty in this supposition, whether Eph. be genuine or not. 
Nor is there any real difficulty (except to those who will insist on 
putting the two apostles in opposition) in supposing that the 
Apostle Peter when in Rome should become familiar with the 


8 5] RELATION TO NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS XXVii 


Epistle to the Romans, and adopt some of its thoughts and 
language. It is difficult, however, to suppose him acquainted with 
Eph. and other Epistles. Salmon suggests another alternative, 
namely, that while Paul was in Rome, Peter may have arrived 
there, in which case there would be a good deal of wivd voce inter- 
course between them, and Paul’s discourses to the Christians at 
Rome may have been heard by Peter. This suggestion appears 
to have been made also by Schott (Der erste Brief Petri, 1851).1 
Holtzmann’s objection to it is singularly weak, viz. first, that 
according to Gal. 1. 18, 11. 1 sq., 11 sqq., we must regard the 
personal intercourse between the two apostles as limited to three 
widely separated moments, and broken off in some bitterness ; and, 
secondly, that St. Peter could not in this way have become 
familiar with Rom. xii. xiii. The latter remark has been replied to 
by anticipation ; as to the former, what sort of idea of the two 
apostles must Holtzmann have, to think that the incident at 
Antioch must have led to a permanent estrangement between 
them! Finally, if 1 Pet. was composed by Silvanus under the 
direction of the apostle, which is possibly what is meant by v. 12, the 
use of St. Paul’s thoughts and language is sufficiently accounted for. 


§ 5. RELATION TO OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS 


Epistle to the Hebrews.—Points of contact with the Ep. to the 
Hebrews have been noted. Lexically, ¢.g. αἷμα καὶ σάρξ (elsewhere 
σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα), ἀγρυπνεῖν, κραυγή, ὑπεράνω, ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν 
οὐρανῶν, εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν, αἰὼν μέλλων, προσφορὰ καὶ θυσία, βουλή 
of God, παρρησία in the sense of spiritual assurance. There are 
also peculiar conceptions common to both Epistles: Eph. i. 20, 
ἐκάθισεν ev δεξίᾳ αὐτοῦ, Heb. i. 3, vill. 1, x. 12: Eph. i. 7, ἀπολύτρωσις 
διὰ τοῦ αἵματος, Heb. ix. 12: Eph. v. 25, 26, ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ 
αὐτῆς twa αὐτὴν ayidon, Heb. xiii. 12, x. τὸ: St. Paul, it is said, 
does not represent ἁγιασμός as the object of Christ’s atoning death, 
but rather justification. Eph. iil. 12, ἐν © ἔχομεν τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ 
τὴν προσαγωγήν, Heb. iv. 16, προσερχώμεθα μετὰ παρρησίας. The 
Christology, also, of the two Epp. is the same. Of course, if Eph. 
is genuine, there is no difficulty in admitting that the writer to the 
Hebrews used it. V. Soden, however, argues that the latter 
Epistle is the earlier. His reason is that 1 Pet. is dependent on 
Hebrews, and probably earlier than Eph. ‘The former proposition 
is more than doubtful; but we need not discuss it, since, as we 
have seen, it is probably 1 Pet. that has used Eph. 

1 “‘ Peter possessed an eminently sympathetic nature. He was one who 


received impressions easily, and could not without an effort avoid reflecting the 
tone of the company in which he lived” (Salmon, /7¢vod., 7th ed., p. 438). 


XxVili THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [$5 


The Apocalypse.—There are also noted points of correspond- 
ence with the Apocalypse, e.g. Eph. ii. 20, “foundation of the 
apostles and prophets”; Rev. xxi. 14: Eph. iii. 5, (τῷ μυστηρίῳ) ὃ 

. νῦν ἀπεκαλύφθη τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ Kat προθήταις, 
Rey. x. 7, τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς εὐηγγέλισε τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ δούλους 
τοὺς προφήτας : Eph. v. 11, μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις 
τοῦ σκότους, Rev. xviii. 4, ἵνα μὴ συγκοινωνήσητε ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτῆς: 
Eph. v. 25 ff., the comparison of the union of Christ and the 
Church to that of husband and wife; cf. Rev. xix. 7, a/1 Many 
other coincidences are pointed out by Holtzmann, who concludes 
that the author of Eph. made use of the Apocalypse. V. Soden, 
however, judges that they do not prove any dependence either 
literary or spiritual on either side, but that they show that the 
author of Eph. stood much nearer than Paul to the modes of 
expression of Christianity which are attested in the Apocalypse ; 
and he passes a similar judgment on the relation between Eph. 
and the Gospel of John, except that in the latter case the affinity 
extends also to the ideas. 

As to the Apocalypse, it is hard to believe that the writer of 
Eph. v. 23 ff. had before him the fact that the Church had 
already by another writer been expressly designated the Bride of 
Christ. He seems, on the contrary, to have been led up to it step 
by step from the comparison of the headship of the man (=1 Cor. 
xl. 3) to the headship of Christ. Rather does the exposition in 
the Apocalypse appear to be a development of the figure first 
suggested in Eph. The figure of the Bridegroom appears, indeed, 
in the Gospel of St. John iii. 29, but it is used there merely to 
illustrate the superiority of Christ to the Baptist. In fact, the 
Parable of the Ten Virgins in the Synoptic Gospels is much closer 
to the figure here. 

Gospel of St. John.—Comparison with the Gospel of St. John 
gives results such as the following :—The Logos-idea is in substance 
indicated in i. το, where Christ 15 represented as the point of union 
in which the divided universe is brought together. As to the 
special application of this fundamental thought to the relation of 
Jews and Gentiles (ii. 13-22, ill. 6), there are significant parallels 
in John (x. 16, xi. 52, xvii. 20, 21). Further, it is especially the 
ideas of γνῶσις and ἀγάπη that in both Epistle and Gospel 
dominate everything, and in most of the (ten) places in Eph. in 
which ἀγάπη occurs the thought is Johannine, as in i. 4, 11. 4. 
Christ is 6 ἠγαπημένος (i. 6), the absolute object of Divine love, as 
in John iii. 35, x. 17, xv. Ὁ; and especially ΡΠ: 25, Ὁ ihe 
words ἠγάπησάς pe πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ἴῃ xvii. 24 particularly 

1 Compare also Eph. i. 17, Rev. xix. 10; Eph. i. 8, Rev. xiii. 18; Eph. 
ii. 13, Rev. v. 9; Eph. iii. 9, Rev. iv. 11, x. 6; Eph. iii, 18, Rev. xi. 1, 
xxi. 15-17; Eph. v. 32, Rev. i. 20. 


§ 6] TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING ΧΧΙΧ 


are in touch both with ἠγαπημένος in i. 6, and with πρὸ καταβολῆς 
κόσμον ini. 4. ‘The work of redemption is in John viewed especially 
as one of ἁγιάζειν (xvil. 17, 19); so also Eph. v. 26. This ἁγιάζειν 
is accomplished by Christ xa@apicas . . . ἐν ῥήματι, to which 
corresponds καθαρὸς διὰ τὸν λόγον, John xy. 3. Moreover, the 
effect produced on those who are sanctified is described as a 
quickening of the dead (John v. 21, 25, 28; Eph. ii. 5, 6). The 
contrast between the light which Christ brings and the opposing 
power of darkness is expressed in both with striking similarity. 


EPH. v. JOHN. 

8. ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε. xs: περιπατεῖτε ὡς τὸ φῶς ἔχετε. 

11. μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε (τὰ ἔργα 111. 20. πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων 
τοῦ σκότου"). μισεῖ τὸ φῶς καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται. πρὸς τὸ 

φῶς ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ" 

13. τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ 11. 21. ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τῆν ἀλήθειαν 
φωτὸς φανεροῦται" πᾶν γὰρ τὸ φανερού- ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς ἵνα φανερωθῃ 
μενον φῶς ἐστι. αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα. 


Here what comes close together in Eph. appears in the Gospel 
of John in two separate places. The same thing occurs with Eph. 
iv. 8—ro compared with John 111. 31, vil. 39. Indeed, the parallels 
begin with Eph. iv. 7, ἡ χάρις κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
In the Gospel the one exception in which the Spirit is given οὐκ ἐκ 
μέτρου is expressed in 11. 34 in a form which becomes intelligible 
only by presupposing the general statement in Eph. “to each of 
us,” etc. The expressions, too, in Eph. iv. 9, 10, and John iii. 13, 
suggest a waned dependence. Eph. : τὸ δὲ ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ ὅτι 
καὶ κατέβη. . 6 καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ ὃ ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πάντων 
τῶν οὐρανῶν. 

John: οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὃ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
καταβάς. Here again, says Holtzmann, the passage in the Gospel 
becomes quite clear only on supposition of a reminiscence. 

The correspondence between Eph. and the Johannine writings 
is sufficiently accounted for by the supposition that ‘‘St. John read 
and valued St. Paul’s writings,” as Salmon remarks. This appears 
strongly confirmed by certain correspondences between the Apoca- 
lypse and the Ep. to the Colossians (see Introd. to Col.). 

Pastoral Epistles.—It is not necessary to dwell on the coinci- 
dences with the Pastoral Epistles, since, whether these are accepted 
as genuine or not, it cannot be imagined that the writer of Eph. 
borrowed from them. In fact, no one who questions Eph. accepts 
the Pastorals. 


§ 6. TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 


The Epistle was written while St. Paul was a prisoner, iii. 1, 
iv. 1, vi. 20. From the mention of Tychicus as the bearer of it, 


ΧῈΝ THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [3 6 


vi. 21 compared with Col. iv. 7 and Philemon 13, we may conclude 
that these three Epistles were written at the same time. Most com- 
mentators have supposed that they were written from Rome, but 
some moderns have advocated the claims of Caesarea (Acts 
XXill. 35, xxiv. 27). The following reasons are adduced in favour 
of this view by Meyer. First, that it is more likely that the 
fugitive slave Onesimus would make his way from Colossae to 
Caesarea than by a long sea voyage to Rome. Wieseler’s reply is 
sufficient, namely, that he would be safer from the pursuit of the 
Jugitivarit in the great city. St. Paul, too, seems to have been 
under stricter guard at Caesarea, where only “his own” were 
allowed to attend him (Acts xxiv. 23), than at Rome, where he 
lived in his own hired house and received all that came to him. 
As to the circumstances of Onesimus’ flight we know nothing. 
Secondly, if the Epistles were sent from Rome, Tychicus and his 
companion Onesimus would have arrived at Ephesus first, and we 
might therefore expect that, with Tychicus, Onesimus would be men- 
tioned, in order to ensure him a kindly reception. This argument 
falls to the ground if the Ep. was not written to Ephesus. 

Thirdly, he argues from Eph. vi. 21, ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμεῖς, that 
before Tychicus would arrive at Ephesus he would have previously 
fulfilled to others the commission here mentioned. But this is 
really to suppose that the readers of the Epistle had previously 
heard of the message to the Colossians. The meaning of καὶ 
ὑμεῖς is quite different (see note). Fourthly, it is argued that in 
Philem. 22 Paul asks Philemon to prepare him a lodging, and that 
soon (ἅμα δὲ kai). This presupposes, says Meyer, that his place of 
imprisonment was nearer to Colossae than Rome, and, which is 
the main point, that Paul intended on. his expected release to go 
direct to Phrygia ; whereas from Phil. 11. 24 we see that he intended 
to proceed to Macedonia after his liberation (not to Spain, as he 
had at first thought of doing, Rom. xv. 24). And Weiss thinks 
this decisive. But he might well take Philippi on his way to 
Colossae, Philippi being on the great high road between Europe 
and Asia (Lightfoot, P/z/ippians, p. 48 f.). On the other hand, as 
Mangold observes (Bleek, Z7/. p. 507), the desire to visit Rome 
lay so near the apostle’s heart during his imprisonment in Caesarea 
(Acts xxiii. 11), that he would not think of making a journey thence 
to Phrygia for which he would order a lodging, even if Phrygia is 
looked on only as a station on the way to Rome. But the 
expression in Philem. implies more than a mere passing through, 
The fact is, however, that the argument treats the request too 
much in the light of a business arrangement instead of a friendly 
suggestion. When St. Paul says, “I hope that through your 
prayers I may be granted to you,” without even adding “soon,” it 
is clear that his hope was not definitely for a speedy release. Had 


» 


§ 7] VOCABULARY OF THE EPISTLE ΧΧΧΙ 


it been so, he would doubtless have alluded to it in the Ep. to the 
Colossians. Jerome suggests the true explanation, viz. that he 
spoke “dispensatorie ut dum eum expectat Philemon ad se esse 
venturum, magis faciat quod rogatus est.” As Hort puts it: “It 
is but a playful way of saying to Philemon, ‘Remember that I 
mean to come and see with my own eyes whether you have really 
treated your Christian slave as I have been exhorting you’; and 
then giving the thought a serious turn by assuring him that, 
‘coming is no mere jest, for he does indeed hope some day to be 
set free through their prayers, and then he will haste to visit 
them.’” 

Another argument has been founded on the absence from Col. 
of any reference to the earthquakes which visited the cities of the 
Lycus about this time. Under the year 60 (which includes the 
last part of the Caesarean imprisonment) Tacitus mentions an 
earthquake which destroyed Laodicea (Aum. xiv. 27). Four years 
later Eusebius’ Chronicle mentions the destruction of Laodicea, 
Hierapolis, and Colossae by an earthquake (O/. 210). It is not 
certain that these notices refer to the same event, but, even 
granting that they do, there is good reason to believe that 
Eusebius is more likely to be right in the date than Tacitus. The 
latter appears to be in error about the date of another earthquake 
of this reign (Schiller, Vero, 160, 172, referred to by Hort), whereas 
Eusebius appears to have followed unusually good authorities 
about these earthquakes ; for in the case of the great earthquake 
in the reign of Tiberius, he adds Ephesus to the list of ruined 
cities mentioned by Tacitus and Pliny ; and a monument at Naples 
proves his correctness. If Eusebius is right as to the date of the 
earthquake, it would be later than the Epistle. Or, again, if the 
earthquakes in question are not the same, there is no evidence that 
the earlier extended as far as Colossae. 

Lightfoot, in his essay on the “Order of the Epistles of the 
Captivity ” (Comm. on Philippians), argues strongly from language 
and style that the Epistle to the Philippians preceded these three. 
If so, and if, as is generally believed, that Epistle was written from 
Rome, we have in this a further proof of the Roman origin of 
Ephesians and the other two. 


§ 7. VOCABULARY OF THE EPISTLE, 


List of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in the Epistle to the Ephesians. 


ἄθεος, αἰσχρότης, αἰχμαλωτεύειν (but Text. Rec. in 2 Tim. iii. 6), 
> , μὰ € > a ” , 2 4 3 / 
avaveow, ἄνοιξις, ἀπαλγεῖν, ἄσοφος, βέλος, ἐκτρέφω, ἐλαχιστότερος, 


, - , av , ΄ »” 
ἑνότης, ἐξισχύειν, ἐπιδύειν, ἐπιφαύσκειν, ἑτοιμασία, εὔνοια (Text. Rec. 


XXXil THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [$8 


has it in τ Cor. vii. 3), εὐτραπελία, 6 ἠγαπημένος (of Christ), θυρεός, 
καταρτισμύός, κατώτερος, κληροῦν, κλυδωνίζεσθαι, κοσμοκράτωρ, κρυφῇ, 
κυβεία, μακροχρόνιος, μέγεθος, μεθοδεία, μεσότοιχον, μωρολογία, πάλη, 
παροργισμύός, πολυποίκιλος, προελπίζειν, προσκαρτέρησις, ῥυτίς, συμ- 
μέτοχος, συμπολίτης, συναρμολογεῖν, συνοικοδομεῖν, σύσσωμος. 


Words found elsewhere, but not in St. Paut. 


The following words are found elsewhere in the N.T., but not 
in St. Paul :—dyvova (Acts, 1 Pet.), ἀγρυπνεῖν (Mark, Luke, Heb.), 
ἀκρογωνιαῖος (1 Pet.), ἀμφότεροι, ἄνεμος, ἀνιέναι (Acts, Heb.), ἅπας, 
ἀπειλή (Acts), εὔσπλαγχνος (1 Pet.), μακράν, ὀργίζεσθαι, ὁσιότης 
(Luke), ὀσφύς, πανοπλία (Luke), πάροικος (Acts, 1 Pet.), περιζων- 
νύναι, πλάτος (Apoc.), ποιμήν (= pastor, only 1 Pet., which also has 
ἀρχιποιμήν), πολιτεία (Acts), campos, σπῖλος, συγκαθίζειν (Luke, but 
intrans.), σωτήριον (Luke, Acts), ὕδωρ, ὑποδεῖσθαι, ὕψος, φραγμός, 
φρόνησις (Luke), χαριτοῦν (Luke), χειροποιητός. 

Holtzmann adds the following, which occur in the Pastorals, 
assuming, namely, that they are not genuine :—aiypadwrevew 
(2 Tim. Rec.), ἅλυσις (2 Tim.), ἀπατᾶν (1 Tim.), ἀσωτία (Tit., τ Pet. 
only), διάβολος (1 and 2 Tim. and Tit.), εὐαγγελιστής (Acts, 2 Tim. 
only), παιδεία (2 Tim.), τιμᾶν (τ Tim.). 


Words common to the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, 
but not found elsewhere in NV.T. 


ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, ἁφή, ἀποκαταλλάσσειν, ἀπαλλοτριοῦσθαι, αὔξειν, 
αὔξησις, ὀφθαλμοδουλεία, ῥιζοῦν, συζωοποιεῖν, συμβιβάζειν. 
Add the expression ἐκ ψυχῆς. 


Words which are common to Ephesians and the Pauline Epistles 
(excluding the Pastorals), but which are not found in other 
NV.T. writers. 


> 4 5 » 39 ’ 5 tA ΕΣ 

αγασω α. V ὃ 
᾿ ἀγαθωσύνη, ληθεύειν, ἀνεξιχνίαστος, ἐπιχορηγία, εὔνοια ( Cor 
vii. 3 Text. Rec., but not in the best texts), εὐωδία, θάλπειν, 
κάμπτειν, περικεφαλαία, πλεονέκτης, ποίημα, πρεσβεύειν, προετοι- 
μάζειν, προσαγωγή, προτίθεσθαι, υἱοθεσία, ὑπερβάλλειν, ὑπερεκπερισ- 
σοῦ. 


§ 8. CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Ch. i. x, 2. Salutation. 

3-8. Praise to God for the blessings of salvation. We were 
chosen in Christ as the recipients of these blessings before the 
Creation, and the object of this was that we should be holy and 


§ 8] CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE XXXill 


blameless, being admitted to the adoption of sons through Christ, 
in whom we received redemption. 

g-11. God hath made known to us His purpose to sum up 
all things, whether in heaven or on earth, in Christ. 

12-14. We Jews had even in former times been promised the 
Christ, and had fixed our hopes on Him; but ye Gentiles have also 
received the same blessings, and have been sealed with the Holy 
Spirit as an earnest of the inheritance. 

15-19. Therefore having heard of your faith I always thank 
God for you, and pray that ye may attain the knowledge of the 
hope to which ye are called, the glory of your inheritance, and the 
greatness of the power of God, who gives this inheritance. 

20-23. A striking example of this power was shown in the 
raising of Christ from the dead, who has now been set above all 
authorities and powers, by whatever name they may be called, 
whether earthly or heavenly, whether belonging to this world or to 
the next. To the Church, however, He stands in a closer relation, 
being the Head to which the Church is related as His Body. 

11. 1-10. A further instance of His power is that when we 
were dead through our sins He gave us life and made us partakers 
of the resurrection of Christ, and of His exaltation. This was not 
for any merit of our own, but was the undeserved gift of God, who 
loved us even when we were dead through our sins. But although 
our salvation was thus not of works but of grace, our new creation 
had good works in view as its result. 

11-22. Ye Gentiles had formerly no share in the covenants 
of promise, but were aliens from the citizenship of Israel. Now, 
however, Christ, by His death, has done away with the barrier 
between you and the true Israel, and has reconciled both to God. 
So that equally with the Jews, and on the same terms, ye have 
access to the Father. All alike form part of the one holy temple 
in which God dwells. 

111. 1-9. This truth that the Gentiles are equally with the 
Jews heirs of the inheritance, members of the body and partakers 
of the promise, was hidden from former generations, but has now 
been revealed to the apostles and prophets; and to me, though 
unworthy, has been given the special privilege of preaching Christ 
to the Gentiles, and of making known to all men this mystery. 

10-13. Hereby God designs that even the angelic powers 
may learn through the Church to know the varied wisdom of God 
exemplified in His eternal purpose in Christ. 

14-19. Prayer that they may be given inward spiritual 
strength ; that Christ may dwell in them through faith; and that 
being themselves well grounded in love they may learn to know 
the loye of Christ, although, properly speaking, it surpasses know- 
ledge. 

ς 


xxxiv THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [8.8 


20, 21. Doxology suggested by the thought of the great things 
which have been prayed for. 

iv. 1-3. Exhortation to live a life corresponding to their calling, 
in lowliness, patience, love, and unity. 

4-11. Essential unity of the Church as a spiritual organism, 
inspired by one Spirit, acknowledging one Master, into whose 
name they are all baptized, and all being children of the same 
Divine Father. Within this unity a diversity of gifts and offices is 
to be recognised. 

12-16. The object of all is to make the saints perfect in unity 
of faith and maturity of knowledge, so that they may be secured 
against the changing winds of false doctrine, and that the whole 
body, deriving its supply of nourishment from the Head, even 
Christ, may grow up and be perfected in love. 

17-24. Admonition that remembering the blessings of which 
they have been made partakers, they should put off their former 
life, their old man, and put on the new man. 

25-31. Exhortations against special sins, falsehood, anger, theft, 
idleness, foul speaking, malice, ete. 

32-v. 2. Exhortation to take the love of God in Christ as a 
pattern for imitation, especially in their forgiveness of one another. 

3-14. Special warning against sins of uncleanness. 

15-21. More general exhortation to regulate their conduct 
with wisdom, to make good use of opportunities, and, instead of 
indulging in riotous pleasure, to express their joy and thankfulness 
in spiritual songs. 

22-33. Special injunctions to husbands and wives, illustrated 
by the relation of Christ to the Church, which is compared to that 
of the husband to the wife, so that as the Church is subject to 
Christ, so should the wife be to her husband; and, on the other 
hand, as Christ loved the Church even to the point of giving Him- 
self up for it, so should the husband love his wife. There is, 
indeed, one important point of difference, namely, that Christ is 
the Saviour of the Church of which He is the Head. 

vi. 1-9. Special injunction to children and fathers, slaves and 
masters ; slaves to remember that they are doing service to Christ, 
masters that they also have a Master before whom master and 
slave are alike. 

1o—-12. Exhortation to arm themselves with the whole armour 
of God in preparation for the conflict with the spiritual powers 
which are opposed to them. 

13-18. Detailed specification of the parts of the spiritual armour. 

19, 20. Request for their prayers for himself, that he may have 
freedom of speech to preach the mystery of the gospel. 

21-24. Personal commendation of his messenger Tychicus, 
and final benediction. 


§ 9] LITERATURE OF EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS xxxv 


§ 9. LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Commentaries on the entire New Testament are not noticed 
here. For the older works, the lists in the English translation of 
Meyer, and in M‘Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia, have been 
consulted. 


Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 


ALTHOFER (Christ.), Ammadversiones, etc. Alt. 1641. 

Annotationes in V.T. et in Ep. ad Ephesios (auctore incerto). 
Cantab. 1653; Amst. 1703. 

Battus (Bartholomaeus), Commentarius in Epistolam ad 
Ephesios. Gryphisw. 1619. 

BayNE or Baynes (Paul), Commentary on the Ep. to the 
Ephesians. Lond. 1643. 

BINEMANN, Zxfositio. Lond. 1581. 

Bopius or Boyp (Robert), /x Zp. ad Ephesios Praelectiones. 
Lond. 1652. 

Bucer (Martin), Praelectiones in Ep. ad Ephesios (posthumous ; 
ed. by Im. Tremellius). Basil, 1562. 

BUGENHAGEN (Joh.), Adnotatt. in Epp. ad Gal. Eph. Phil. Col. 
etc. Basil, 1527. 

Catixtus (G.), Lxpositio litt. in Epp. ad Eph. Col. ete. 
Helmst. 1664-66. 

Coccetus (Joh.), S. Apost. Pauli Ep. ad Ephesios cum Comm. 
Lugd. Bat. 1667. . 

Croctus (Joh.), Comment. in Ep. ad Ephesios. Cassellis, 1642. 

CRELLIUS (Joh.), Comment. et Paraphrasis tn Ep. ad Ephesios. 
Eleutherop. 1656. 

Du Bose (Pierre Th.), Sermons sur ?Epitre de St. Paul aux 
Lphésiens (chs. 1.--11. only). 3 tom. Rotterd. 1699. 

FERGUSON (Jas.), A brief Exposition of the Epp. of Paul to 
the Gal. and Eph. London, 1659. 

Goopwin (Thos.), Zxposition, etc. Lond. 1681. Condensed, 
Lond. 1842. Works: Edinb. 1861. 

HANNEKEN, Lxplicatio, etc. Marp. 1631; Lips. 1718, αὐ. 

HEMINGE or HEMMINGIUS, Comment. in omnes Epp. Apostol- 
orum, etc. Argent, 1586. 

Lacus (Daniel), Commentatio quadripertita super Ep. ad 
LE phesios. Gryphisw. 1664. 

LUTHER (Martin), Die Ep. an die Epheser ausgelegt ; aus setnem 
Schriften herausgegeben von Chr. G. Eberle. Stuttg. 1878. 

Maver or Major (Georg), Euarratio Ep. Pauli scriptae ad 
Ephesios. Vitemb. 1552. 

MEELFUHRER, Commentarius. Norimb. 1628, 


χχχνΐ THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [$9 


MEGANDER, Commentarius. Basil, 1534. 

NAILANT, Lxarrationes. Wen. 1554; Lond. 1570. 

OLEVIANUS (Gaspar), /Votae ex [ejus| Concionibus, etc. Her- 
bosnae, 1588. 

Riptry (Launcelot), Comm. on Ephesians. ond. 1540. 
Republ. in Legh Richmond’s Se/ections of the Reformers, ete. 
Lond. 1817. 

Rotiock (Robert), Zz £p. Pauli ad Ephesios Commentarius. 
Edinb. 1590. 

Scumip (Sebastian), Paraphrasis super Ep. ad Ephesios. 
Strassb. 1684. 

STEUART (Peter), Comment. in Ep. ad Ephesios. Ingolstad. 
1593. 

TaRNovius, Commentarius. Rost. 1636. 

WaNDALIN, Paraphrasis. Slesw. 1650. 

WEInRIcH, Lxplicatio. Lips. 1613. 

VELLERUS or WELLER (Hieron.), Comment. in Ep. ad Ephesios. 
Noriberg. 1550. 

WoopHEAD (Abraham), ALLEsTRY (Rich), and WALKER 
(Obadiah), Paraphrase and Annot. on all the Epistles of St. Paul. 
Oxford, 1682, etc. ; republ. Oxford, 1852. 

ZANCHIUS (Hieron.), Comm. in Ep. ad Ephesios. Neostad. 
1594- 

Lighteenth Century. 


BAUMGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob), Auslegung der Briefe Pauli an 
die Galater, Epheser, Philip. Col. Philemon u. Thess. Halle, 1767. 

CHANDLER (Sam.), Paraphrase and Notes on the Epp. of St. 
Paul to the Gal. and Eph, (with Comm. on Thess.). London, 
1777: 

CRAMER (Joh. Andr.), (ewe Uebersetzung des Briefs an dite 
Epheser, nebst einer Auslegung desselben. amb. 1782. 

DinantT (Petrus), De 4rief aan die van Efeze verklaart en toege- 
past. Rotterd. 1711. (In Latin), Commentarii, etc. Rotterd. 
721, ad. 

Esmarcu (H. P. C.), Brief an die Epheser iibersetzt, Altona, 
1785. 

FEND, £raiiterungen. (5.1.) 1727. 

GERBADEN, Geofent Door. ‘Traj. ad Rhen. 1707. 

GupE (Gottlob Friedr.), Griindliche Erlaiiterung des... Briefes 
an die Epheser. VLauban, 1735. 

Hazevoet, Verklaar. Leyden, 1718. 

Krause (Friedr. Aug. Wilh.), Der Brief an die Epheser tiber- 
setzt u. mit Anmerkungen begleitet. Frankf. a M. 17809. 

LocKkE (John), Paraphrase and Notes on the Epp. of St, Paul 
to the Gal, Cor, Rom, Eph, Wondon, 1707, ad, 


ὃ 9] LITERATURE OF EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS xxxvii 


MOLDENHAUER, Uelersetzung. amb. 1773. 

MicHak.is (Joh. Dav.), Paraphrase u. Anmerkungen tiber die 
Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Eph. Phil. Col. Bremen τι. Gotting. 
1750, 1769. 

Morus (S. F. N.), Acroases in Epp. Paulinas ad Galatas et 
Liphesios. Veipz. 1795. 

Mutter, Lrklarung. Heidelb. 1793. 

Piconio (Bernardinus a, ¢.e. Bernardin de Picquigny), £/zs- 
tolorum B. Pauli Apost. Triplex Expositio. Paris, 1703 ; Vesont. 
et Paris, 1853. 

Popp (ἃ. C.), Uebersetzung τι. Erklirung der drei ersten Kapitel 
des Briefs an die Epheser. Rostock, 1799. 

RoeEtL (Herm. Alex.), Commentarius in principium Ep. ad 
Ephesios. τα]. ad Rhen. 1715. Comm. pars altera cum brevi 
mpuad Col. exesets ed... A: Roell, raj. ad: Rhen."1731. 

Royaarnps (Albertus), Paulus’ Brief aan de Ephesen schrift- 
matig verklaart, 3 deelen. Amsterd. 1735-38. 

Scumip (Sebastian), Paraphrasis super Ep. ad Ephesios. 
Strassb. 1684, aZ. 

SCHNAPPINGER (Bonif. Martin W.), Brief an die Epheser 
erklart. Heidelb. 1793. 

ΞΟΠ ΖΗ (Theodore Joh. Abr.), Comm. in Ep. Pauli ad 
Ephesios. Leipz. 1778. 

SPENER (Philip Jak.), Hr’larung der Episteln an die Epheser 
424. Colosser. alae, 1706, al. 

Van Tit (Solomon), Comm. in quatuor Pauli Epp. nempe 
priorem ad Cor. Eph. Phil. ac Coloss, Amstel. 1726. 

ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Trangott), Paraphrastische Erklarung der 
Briefe Pauli an die Gal. Eph. Phil. Col, u. Thess. Gotting. 1771, 
1787. 

LVineteenth Century. 


Barry (Alfred, Bishop), “‘Commentary on Ephesians and 
Colossians” (Ellicott’s Vez Test. Comm. for English Readers). 

BAUMGARTEN-CRusius (L. F. O.), Comment. tiber d. Briefe 
Pauli an die Eph. u. Kol. Jena, 1847. 

Beet (J. A.), Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians, 
Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. London, 1890. 

Beck (J. T.), Zrklarung des Br. Pauli an die Epheser. 
Guterslob, 1891. 

BLAIKIE (W. G.), ‘Ephesians, Exposition and Homiletics” 
(Pulpit Commentary). London, 1886. 

BLEEK (Friedr.), Vorlesungen iiber die Briefe an d, Kol. d. 
Philemon und ad. Epheser. Berlin, 1865. 

BRAuNE (Karl) in Lange’s Azbelwerk, 1867 and 1875. Trans- 
lated by M. B, Riddle. New York, 1870. 


ΧΧΧΥΠΙ͂ THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [§9 


Dae (R. W.), Zpistle to the Ephesians; its Doctrine and 
Ethics. 3rd ed. 1884. 

Davirs (J. Llewelyn), Zhe Epistle to the Ephesians, Colossians, 
and Philemon. 2nd ed. London, 1884. 

EaviE (John), Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of 
Paul to the Ephesians. 3rd ed. Edinb. 1883. 

Exticotr (C. J., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol), Critical 
and Grammatical Commentary on Ephesians, with a Revised 
Translation. Uondon, 1855, etc. (many editions). 

Ewa.p (G. H. A.), Die Sendschreiben des Ap. P, iibers. und 
_erkiart. Gottingen, 1856. 

Ditto, Sceben Sendschreiben des N. δ. Gottingen, 1870. 

Finptay (G. G.), “ Ephesians,” in the Lxfosttors Bible. 1892. 

Fiatt (J. F. v.), Vorlesungen tiber d. Br. an die Gal. u. die 
Epheser. ‘Tiibingen, 1828. 

Grauam (Wm.), Lectures, etc. Lond. [1870]. 

Har.ess, Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Epheser. 
2 Aufl. Stuttgart, 1858. 

Hopck (Chas.), Comm. on Ep. to the Ephesians. New York, 
1856, al. 

“Vy. HorMann (J. Chr. K.), Der Brief Pauli an die Epheser, 
Nordlingen, 1870. 

HouzHausEn (F. A.), Der Br. an die Epheser tbersetzt u. 
erklart. annov. 1833. 

Kuopper (A.), Der Brief an die Epheser. Gottingen, 1891. 

Kauter, Predigten. Kiel, 1855. 

Laturop (Joseph), Descourses. Philad. 1864. 

Licutroot (J. B., Bishop of Durham). “Notes on Epistles of 
St. Paul, from unpublished Commentaries by [him].” London, 
1895. (Contains notes on the first 14 verses only.) 

MacEvIitty (John, R.C. Bp. of Galway), Zxfosition of the Epistles 
of St. Paul and of the Catholic Epistles. Lond. 1856; Dublin, 1860. 

MAcPHERSON (John), Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
Ephesians. "Edinb. 1892. 

M‘GHEE (Rob. J.), Expository Lectures on the Ep. to the 
Ephesians. 4th ed. London, 1861. 

Meter (Fr. K.), Commentar uber d. Br. Pauli an d. Epheser. 
Berlin, 1834. 

Meyer (H. A. W.), Avitisch exegetisches Handbuch iiber d. 
Pauli an die Epheser. 6te Aufl. Versorgt durch Dr. Woldemar 
Schmidt. Gottingen, 1886. 

Meyrick, “ Ephesians,” in the Speakers Commentary. 

Moute (H. C. G.), “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” in the 
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge, 1895. 
NEWLAND (Henry Garrett), Vew Catena on St. Pauls Epp., A 
Practical and Exegetical Commentary. Lond. 1860. 





§ 9] LITERATURE OF EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS  xxxix 


OLTRAMARE (Hugues), Comm. sur les Epitres de S. Paul aux 
Coloss. aux Ephes. et a Philemon. 3tom. Paris, 1891. 

PassavantT (Theophilus), Versuch einer praktischen Auslegung 
des Briefes Pauli an die Epheser. Basel, 1836. 

PERcCEVAL (A. P.), Lectures, etc. Lond. 1846. 

PrIDHAM (Arthur), Votes, δίς. Lond. 1854. 

PuLsForD (John), Christ and His Seed: Expository Discourses 
on Pauls Ep. to the Ephesians. Lond. 1872. 

Rickert (Leopold J.), Der Br. Pauli an die Epheser erlaiitert 
«x. Vertheidigt. Leipz. 1834. 

SADLER (M. F.), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians. London, 
1889. 
SCHENKEL (Dan.), “Die Briefe an die Epheser, Philipper, 
Colosser” (ite Aufl. in Lange’s Azbelwerk, 1862; 2te Aufl. 1867, 
when Braune’s Comm. replaced it in Lange). 

Scumipt (Woldemar). See MEYER. 

SCHNEDERMANN (G.), in Strack and Zockler’s Kurzgef. Komm. 
Nordlingen, 1888. 

StmcoE (Henry A.), 22. to Eph. with Texts gathered, etc. 
Lond. 1832. 

Von SopeENn (H.), “Die Briefe an die Kolosser, Epheser, 
Philemon ; die Pastoralbriefe” (in Hand-Commentar zum N.T.; 
bearbeitet von H. T. Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius, u.a.) 2te Aufl. 
Freiburg 1. B., und Leipzig, 1893. 

STIER (Rudolph E.), Die Gemeinde tn Christo ; Auslegung des 
Br. an die Eepheser. Berlin, 1848, 18409. 

TURNER (Samuel Hulbeart), Zhe Zp. to the Ephesians in Greek 
and English, with an Analysis and Exegetical Commentary. New 
York, 1856. 

Weiss (Bernhard), Die Paulinischen Briefe in berichtigten 
Text, mit Kurzer Erlatiterung. Leipz. 1896. 

WOHLENBERG (G.), “Die Briefe an die Epheser, an die 
Colosser, an Philem. u. an die Philipper ausgelegt (in Strack and 
Zockler’s Kurzgef. Comm.). Miinchen, 1895. 


Critical Discussions. 
General works on Introduction are not noticed here. 


ALEXANDER (W. L.), art. “Ephesians” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia 
of Biblical Literature. Lond. 1863. 

Baur (F. C.), Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi. ‘Tiibing. 1845. 
English trans. St. Paul, His Life and Work. London, 1873-75. 

BEMMELEN (Van), £fp. ad Eph. et Col. collatae. Lugd. Bat. 
1803. 

HAENLEIN, De lectoribus Ep. ad Ephesios. Erlang. 1797. 


xl THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [3 10 


Honic (W.), “ Ueber das Verhiltniss des Briefes an die Epheser 
zum Br. an die Kolosser,” in Hilgenfeld’s Zectschrift. 1872. 

Ho.itzMann (H. J.), Avitik der Epheser- und Kolosser-briefe. 
1372: 

HiLcENFELD (Adolf), Review of the preceding, in his Zezt- 
Schrift, 1873, p. 183. 

Hort (F. J. A.), Prolegomena to St. Pauls Epistle to the 
Romans and the Ephesians. (Posthumous.) Lond. 1895. 

Hut, “ Ep. ad Laod. in encycl. ad Eph.” Erlangen, 1751. 

Kiene (Adolf), ‘“‘ Der Epheserbrief ein Sendschreiben . . . an 
die Heidenchristen der Sieben (Ὁ) Kleinasiat. Gemeinden,” etc. 
Studien u. Krittken, 1869, p. 285. 

Koster, De echthetd van de brieven aan de Kol. en aan de Eph. 
Utrecht, 1877. 

Kostiin (J.), Der Lehrbegriff des Evang. u. der verwandten 
NV.T. Lehrbegriffe. Berlin, 1843. 

Licutroot (J. B., Bishop of Durham), “ Destination of the 
Epistle to the Ephesians” in Biblical Essays. (Posthumous.) 
London, 1893. 

Linemann, De Ep. ad Ephesios authentia. Gotting. 1842. 

MILLIGAN (W.), art. “‘ Ephesians, Epistle to,” in Encyclopaedia 
Britannica. gth ed. 

Montet (L.), Zutrod. in Ep. ad Coloss. Mont. 1841. 

RoseErtson (Arch.), art. ‘Ephesians, Epistle to,” in Smith’s 
Dictionary of the Bible. 2nd ed. Lond. 1893. 

RABIGER (J. Ferd.), De Christologia Paulina contra Baurium 
Commentatio. 1852. 

SCHENKEL (Dan.), art. “Epheserbrief,” in his Dzbellexicon. 
1869. 

SCHNECKENBURGER (Matth.), Ueber d. Alter d. judischen 
Proselyten Taufe, etc. With Appendix, “Ueber ἃ. Irrlehren zu 
Kolossae.” 1828. 

ΘΟΡΕΝ (H. v.), ‘‘ Epheserbrief” in Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. 1887. 


§ 10. ON SOME READINGS PECULIAR TO ONE OR TWO MSS. 


Both Epistles are here taken together. 

The more important readings are discussed in their respective 
places. Here are brought together a few isolated or nearly isolated 
readings of particular MSS., several of which are probably errors 
of the respective copyists. 

ἐξ stands alone— 

Eph. i. 18, τῆς κληρονομίας τῆς δόξης for τῆς δ. τῆς KA. 

11. 1, ἑαυτῶν for ὑμῶν. 

ii. 4, N* om. ἐν. 


810] READINGS PECULIAR TO ONE OR TWO MSS. xli 


ii. 7, S* omits the whole verse (passing from ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 
in ver. 6 to the same words in ver. 7), supplied by 8% 

ii. το, N*, Θεοῦ for αὐτοῦ. 

ν. 17, N*, φρόνημα for θέλημα. 

Vv. 20 OM. ἡμῶν. 

Col. ii. το, 8*, τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐκκλησίας for ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας. 

ii, 18, 8*, before ἀγγέλων add. μελλόντων. 

111. 1, ὃ Θεός for ὁ Χριστός. But the first scribe seems to have 
himself corrected it (Tisch.). 

In the following & is not quite alone :— 

ΤΙ 17, 8", € ἔσχομεν (ἔχομεν, 8°) -- D*, Boh. Eth. 

9, S* om. ἐν. Expressly attributed to Marcion by Ter- 
tullian (Marc. v. 18), ‘‘rapuit haereticus in praepositionem, et ita 
legi fecit: occulti ab aeris deo,” etc. So Dead. 870. 

iv. 24, &*, ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ for ἐν dix. kK. b0.= 
Ambrosiaster. 

Col. i. 23, κἢρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος (for διάκονος) = P. 

A combines this and the genuine text; Eth. has κῆρυξ καὶ 
διάκονος ; while Euthal. (cod.) has διάκονος καὶ ἀπόστολος. 

i, 24, τοῖς παθήμασιν ὑμῶν for τοῖς π. ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (= L 37*). 


A alone has— 

Eph. i. Jo, κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν ἴοτ εἰς οἶκ. 

iv. 14, noe for νήπιοι (ν precedes). 

iv. το, εἰἰς ἀκα]θαρσίαν πάσης for εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας 
πάσης. 

Vi. 23, ἔλεος for ἀγάπη. 

Col. i. 23, κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διάκονος for διάκονος. See 
under &. 

In Eph. i. 3 A* reads ὑμεῖς for ἡμεῖς, with D*. 

Ini. 11 A agrees with DG in reading ἐκλήθημεν for ἐκληρώ- 
θημεν. 

i. 20, ὑμῖν for ἡ np = 39, 63. 

v. 15, after οὖν A adds ἀδελφοί, with x° Vulg. Boh. 


B alone— 

Eph, i. 13, ἐσφραγίσθη for ἐσφραγίσθητε (τῷ follows; the 
copyist’s eye passed from tT to τὴ. 

1. 21, ἐξουσίας καὶ ἀρχῆς for ἀ ἀρ. καὶ ἐξ. 

li. 1, ἐπιθυμίαις for 4 ἁμαρτίαις. 

li. 5, after παραπτώμασιν B adds καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις, thus repeat- 
ing the expression of ver. 1 with the erroneous reading. ‘These 
can hardly be regarded otherwise than as serious errors. 

v. 17 after Κυρίου add ἡμῶν. 


xlii THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [38 10 


Col. i. 3 omits Χριστοῦ. 

i. 4 Omits ἣν ἔχετε. 

i, 11, 12 after χαρᾶς adds ἅμα. 

i. 12, καλέσαντι καὶ ἱκανώσαντι for ἱκανώσαντι, a complete 
reading. 

lil. 15, after ἐξουσίας add καί. 

In the following B is not without support :— 

Eph. i. 3 om. καὶ πατήρ = Hil. (semel), Victorinus. But Hil. 
has also (42s) πατήρ without ὃ Θεὸς καί. 

1. 18 om. tpov=17 Arm. 

i. 20, οὐρανοῖς for ἐπουρανίοις = 71, 213, Hil. Victorin. 

il. 5 before τοῖς παραπτ. adds ἐν = Arm (?). 

111. 3 om. ὅτι, with d, Victorin. Ambrosiaster. But G, Goth. 
have κατὰ ἄποκ. γάρ, which gives some probability to the omission 
of ὅτι. 

111. 5 OM. ἀποστόλοις, with Ambrosiaster. 

lil. 10, πληρωθῇ for πληρώθητε εἰς, with 17, 73, 116. 

iv. 7, ὑμῶν for ἡμῶν = 38, 109, Theodoret. 

Vi. Io, δυναμοῦσθε for ἐνδυναμοῦσθε = 17. 

Col. i. 14, ἔσχομεν, with Boh. Arab. (A non liquet). 

ii. 23 om. καί before ἀφειδίᾳ, with m, Orig. (intp.) Ambrosiaster. 

111. 15 om. é€vi= 672 Sah. 

iv. 3, δι᾿ ὅν for δι᾿ 6=G (71 has dv ov). 


In D the following may be noted :— 

D alone (E not being reckoned). 

Eph. i. 6 adds τῆς before δόξης. 

i. 16, παύσομαι for παύομαι (but so Victorinus). 

11. 15, D*, καταρτίσας for καταργήσας. (The Latin d has 
“ destituens.”) 

ili. 12, D*, ἐν τῷ ἐλευθερωθῆναι for ἐν πεποιθήσει. 

Col. i. 14, D* om. τὴν ἄφεσιν. 

i. 26, φανερωθέν for ἐφανερώθη. 

ii. το, ἐκκλησίας for ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας (compare N*). 

iv. 6, D*, ἡμῶν for ὑμῶν. 

In the following it is supported by one or more :— 

Eph. i. 6, D* adds υἱῷ αὐτοῦ, with G and one cursive, but many 
versions. See note. 

i. 9 Om. αὐτοῦ =G, Goth. Boh. 

i. 12 om. αὐτοῦ -- (. 

il. 5, D*, ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις for τοῖς παραπτώμασιν. So appy. Vulg. 
Hier. etc. (G has τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ). 

26. after Χριστῷ add ot τῇ. G has οὗ. Some MSS. of the Vulg. 
have “ cujus,” with Ambrosiaster. 

iil. 1 after ἐθνῶν adds πρεσβεύω-Ξ- το. 


§10] READINGS PECULIAR TO ONE OR TWO MSs. xiii 


iii, 21, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ-- (, Victorin. Am- 
brosiaster. 

iv. 29, πίστεως for xpelas=G, 46, some Verss. and FF. 

v. 14, D*, ἐπιψαύσεις tod Χριστοῦ, a reading mentioned by 
Chrys. Hier. a/. = Ambrosiaster, a7, A “Western” reading, WH. 

vi. 11, εἰς for tpds=G. 

Col. i. 21, τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν for τῇ διανοίᾳ = G. 

i, 22, ἀποκαταλλαγέντες = G. Goth. Ambrosiaster. 

11. 19, after κεφαλήν add Χριστόν = = Syr-Harcl. Arm. 

111. 11, after ἔνι add ἄρσεν καὶ O7AV=G. 

iii. 14, ἑνότητος for τελειότητος = G, Ambrosiaster. 

iv. το, D*, δέξασθαι for δέξασθε = es Theoph. Ambrosiaster. 

iv. 12, D*, Χριστοῦ for Θεοῦ (with one cursive). 

iv. 13, D*, κόπον for πόνον =  α. 

It is to be remembered that DG are independent witnesses 
of a “‘ Western ” text. 


From G we take the following :— 

G alone (F not being reckoned). 

Eph. i. 18, ἵνα οἴδατε for εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς (looks like a trans- 
lation of the Latin “ut sciatis ”). 

ii. 2, τούτου for τοῦ before πνεύματος (but Vulg. has “aeris 
hujus ”). 

iil. 3 OM. καὶ ἡμεῖς. 

11. 10, Κυρίῳ for Χριστῷ. 

ii. 11, διὰ τοῦτο μνημονεύοντες for διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι (= Vic- 
torin.). 

ii. 15, κοινόν for καινόν. 

ili. 8, after αὕτη add τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

111. 11, OM. τῷ Xp. Ἰησοῦ. 

ill. 12, τὴν προσαγωγὴν εἰς τὴν παρρησίαν. 

ν:.2; ὀνομαζέτω for ὀνομαζέσθω. 

v: 5; εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν for ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ. 

Vv. 20, ὑμῶν for πάντων (Theodoret combines both ὑπὲρ πάντων 
ὑμῶν). 

Col. i. 6 om. ἧς. 

i, 22 om. αὐτοῦ. 

i. 26, after ἃ ἁγίοις add ἀποστόλοις. 

i. 29, εν o for εἰς 6. Of course, no MS. but F agrees; but the 
Latin has ‘in quo.” 

iii. 8, κατά for τά, and add after ὑμῶν, μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω. Some 
Vss. agree, but in them the preceding word may be the nomina- 
tive, eg. Ὁ Stultiloquium.” 


iii. 13, ὀργήν for μομφήν. 
ili. 24, τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾧ δουλεύετε. 


xliv THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 8.10 


iv. 9, after τὰ ὧδε add πραττόμενα. This looks like a translation 
from the Latin “quae hic aguntur,” which cannot be cited as 
supporting G, for it is a fitting rendering of τὰ ὧδε. 

In the following, G is not without support. (For the coinci- 
dences with D see above.) 

Eph. ii. 6, om. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ = Victorin. Hil. 

il. 12, after ἐπαγγελίας add αὐτῶν = Tert. Victorin. Ambrosiaster, 
Eth. 

ib. after κόσμῳ add τούτῳ = Victorin. Ambr. Vulg. (some mss.). 

111. ὃ, ἐλαχίστῳ for ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ = 49. 

ili. 9, after αἰώνων add καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν = Syr-Harcl. 

111. 10 om. νῦν = Vulg. Syr-Pesh. 

ill. 21 OM. τοῦ αἰῶνος, with cod. tol. (of Vulg.) Ambrosiaster. 

iv. 15, ἀληθίαν δὲ ποιοῦντες for ἀληθεύοντες δέ-- ““ veritatem 
autem facientes,” Vulg. Victorin. Ambrosiaster, Hier. But the 
Latin is probably only an interpretation of ἀληθεύοντες, in which 
case the reading of G would have to be regarded as a translation 
of the Latin. Jerome in Quaest. 10 (Algas.) has “veritatem autem 
loquentes.” 

iv. 16 om. κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν, with Arm. (Usc.) Iren. (interp.) ad. 

iv. 23, om. δέτε Eth. 

Col. i. 24, ἀναπληρῶ for ἀνταναπληρῶ = 43, 46, ad. 

il. 15, τὴν σάρκα for τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ = Hil. (47s) Novat. (Syr-Pesh. 
and Goth. seem to combine both). CAPKA may have originated 
from CAPXA, but this would not fully explain the change. It is 
more probable that the reading originated in an interpretation of 
ἀπεκδυσάμενος, the Syr. and Goth. having had our Greek text, but 
understanding dzexd. to mean “putting off his flesh.” Hil. else- 
where has “‘spolians se carne et principatus et potestates ostentul 
fecit” (204). This interpretation being mistaken by a Greek 
scribe for a various reading, he conformed his text thereto. 

ii. 23, after ταπεινοφροσύνῃ add τοῦ véos=Syr-Harcl. Hil. Am- 
brosiaster. (Goth. Boh. add cordis.) This again looks like a 
rendering of a Latin expression. 


It has to be noted that C is defective from Eph. i. 1, Παῦλος to 
προσαγωγήν, 11. 18, and from iv. 17, τοῦτο οὖν to καὶ τί at in Phil. 1. 22. 

As Ια is only a copy of D (after correction), it has not been 
thought necessary or useful to cite it amongst the witnesses to 
various readings. Similarly, as F, if not copied from G (as Hort 
thinks), is, at best, an inferior copy of the same exemplar, it has 
not been cited. To cite DE, or FG, or DEFG, is to give the 
reader the trouble of calling to mind on each occasion the known 
relationship of the respective pairs. 


810] READINGS PECULIAR TO ONE OR TWO MSS. xlv 


It may not be out of place here to say a word on that much 
misapplied maxim: “The more difficult reading is to be pre- 
ferred” ; a maxim which, pressed to its logical conclusion, wou!d 
oblige us to accept the unintelligible because of its unintelligibility ; ; 
and which, indeed, is sometimes urged in support of a reading 
which cannot be interpreted without violence. Bengel with his 
usual terseness and precision expressed in four words the true 
maxim of which this is a perversion: ‘ Proclivi scriptioni praestat 
ardua.” “ Proclivis scriptio” is not a reading easy to understand, 
but one into which the scribe would easily fall; and “scriptio 
ardua” is that which would come less naturally to him. The 
question is not of the interpreter, but of the scribe. This includes 
the former erroneous maxim so far as it is true; but it may, and 
often does happen that the ‘“proclivis scriptio” is a “ difficilis 
lectio.” Bengel’s maxim includes a variety of cases which he 
discusses in detail. 


Ab bi ValAT t OINS: 


Versions. 
Eth. 5 
Arm. 5 
Boh. 5 


ΤΕ Οὐ italy = 
Sah. 


Syr-Pesh. 


Syr-Harcl. or Hcl. . 


The following represent MSS. 
Amiatinus ; fuld. =Cod. Fuldensis ; tol. = Cod. Toletanus. 


Editors. 
Tisch. Β 
Treg. . 
WH. = 
Alf. - 
De W. Ξ 

Ell. 

W. Schmidt 


Theod. Mops. 


Ethiopic. 

Armenian. 

Bohairic. Cited by Tisch. as 
“Coptic,” by Tregelles as 
“ Memphitic,” by WH. as 
[7 me.” 

Old Latin. 

The Sahidic or Thebaic (“ the.” 
WH.). 

The Peshitto Syriac. 

The Harclean Syriac. 


of the Vulgate: viz. am. = Cod. 


Tischendorf. 

Tregelles. 

Westcott and Hort. 

Alford. 

De Wette. 

Ellicott. 

Woldemar Schmidt, Editor of 
Meyer’s Comm. on Ephesians. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia. 


Other abbreviations will create no difficulty. 


xivi 


THE 
Preistie vO THE COLOSSIANS: 


ENTRODUCTION. 


§ 1. THE CHURCH AT COLOSSAE. 


Cotossak (or Colassae, see 1. 2) was situated in Phrygia, on the 
river Lycus, a tributary to the Maeander. Herodotus speaks of it 
as πόλις μεγάλη (vil. 30) ; Xenophon, as πόλις οἰκουμένη καὶ εὐδαίμων 
καὶ μεγάλη (Arad, i. 2. 6). Strabo, however (xii. 8), only reckons 
it as a πόλισμα. Pliny’s mention of it amongst the “ oppida 
celeberrima” (1. JV. v. 32, 41) is not inconsistent with this. It is 
after enumerating the considerable towns that he speaks of 
‘“oppida celeberrima, praeter jam dicta,” thus introducing along 
with Colossae, other small and decayed places. Eusebius (Chron. 
Olymp. 210. 4) records its destruction (with that of Laodicea and 
Hierapolis) in the tenth year of Nero. Tacitus (Az. xiv. 27) 
states that Laodicea, “ex illustribus Asiae urbibus,” was destroyed 
by an earthquake in the seventh year of Nero. (See Introduction 
to Lphesians.) 

The Church at Colossae was not founded by St. Paul, nor had 
it been visited by him (1. 4, 7-9, 11. 1). These indications in the 
Epistle agree with the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, which 
represents his journeys as following a route which would not bring 
him to Colossae. He is, indeed, related to have passed through 
Phrygia on his second and third missionary journeys ; but Phrygia 
was a very comprehensive term, and on neither occasion does the 
direction of his route or anything in the context point to this 
somewhat isolated corner of Phrygia. 

In his second missionary journey, after visiting the Churches 
of Pisidia and Lycaonia, he passes through τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ 
Γαλατικὴν χώραν (Acts xvi. SNe 1.6. the Phrygian region of the 

vu 


xl viii THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [31 


province of Galatia, or the Phrygo-Galatic region. (The τήν before 
Γαλατικήν in the Text. Rec. is not genuine.) Thence he travelled 
through Mysia (neglecting it, παρέλθοντες) to Troas. Thus on 
this journey he kept to the east of the valley of the Lycus. On 
his third journey, he founded no new Churches in Asia Minor, 
but confined himself to revisiting and confirming those already 
founded (Acts xviil. 23). From the Galatic and Phrygian region 
he proceeded to Ephesus by the higher lying and more direct 
route, not the regular trade route down the valleys of the Lycus 
and the Maeander. On this Lightfoot and Ramsay are agreed, 
the former, however, thinking that Paul may have gone as far 
north as Pessinus before leaving Galatia; the latter (consistently 
with his view of the meaning of “ Galatian” in Acts) supposing 
him to have gone directly westward from Antioch to Ephesus. 
Renan supposes him to have traversed the valley of the Lycus, but 
without preaching there, which is hardly consistent with the form 
of expression in 1. 1. The founder of the Church at Colossae 
was apparently Epaphras ; at least it had been taught by him (see 
i. 7, where the correct reading is καθὼς ἐμάθετε, not καθὼς καὶ 
ἐμάθετε). 

The Church appears to have consisted of Gentile converts 
(i. 21, 27, ii. 13); certainly there is no hint that any of the readers 
were Jews, and the circumstance that the founder was a Gentile 
Christian would have been unfavourable to the reception of his 
preaching by Jews. But they were clearly exposed to Jewish 
influences, and, in fact, we know that there was an important 
Jewish settlement in the neighbourhood, Antiochus the Great 
having transplanted two thousand Jewish families from Babylonia 
and Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia (Joseph. “1,77. xii. 3. 4), 
thus forming a colony which rapidly increased in numbers. See 
Lightfoot, Zhe Churches of the Lycus, in his Introduction. He 
gives reasons for estimating the number of Jewish adult freemen in 
the district of which Laodicea was the capital in B.c. 62 at not 
_less than eleven thousand (p. 20). The Colossians were now in 
danger of being misled by certain false teachers, whose doctrines 
we gather from the counter-statements and warnings of the apostle. 
That there was a Judaic element appears from ii. 11, 14, τ6. It 
does not appear, indeed, that circumcision was urged upon them 
as a necessity, or even as a means of perfection. ‘There is nothing 
in the Epistle even remotely resembling the energetic protest 
against such teaching which we have in the Epistle to the Galatians. 
The ascetic precepts alluded to in the Epistle were not based on 
the Mosaic law, for St. Paul says they were derived from the 
tradition of men. The law, too, laid down no general precepts 
about drinks (ii. 16). These rules seem to have been connected 
with the worship of angels (ii, 16-21). The false teachers claimed 


81] THE CHURCH AT COLOSSAE xlix 


an exclusive and profound insight into the world of intermediate 
spirits, whose favour it was desirable to obtain, and by means of 
whom new revelations and new spiritual powers might be attained. 
It was with a view to this that the body was to be treated with 
severity. 

In the three points of exclusiveness, asceticism, and angelology, 
the Colossian heresy shows affinities with Essenism, which, as Light- 
foot remarks, had an affinity with Gnosticism, so that it might be 
called Gnostic Judaism. Historically, indeed, we do not know of 
any Essenism outside Palestine. But there is no need to assume 
an identity of origin of the Colossian heresy and Essenism ; the 
tendencies were not confined to Palestine. And Phrygia provided 
a congenial soil for the growth of such a type of religion. It was 
the home of the worship of Cybele, and Sabazius, and the Ephesian 
Artemis. In philosophy it had produced Thales and Heraclitus. 
The former declared τὸν κόσμον ἔμψυχον καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρη (Diog. 
Laert; 1.27): 

The natural phenomena of the region about Hierapolis, 
Laodicea, and Colossae were well calculated to encourage a 
belief in demoniac or angelic powers controlling the elementary 
forces of nature. There was, for example, at Hierapolis (and still 
is) an opening, called the Plutonium, which emitted a vapour 
(sulphuretted hydrogen) fatal to animals which came within its 
range. Strabo relates that the eunuchs employed about the 
temple were able to approach and bend over the opening with 
impunity—holding in their breath (μέχρι ποσοῦ συεχόντας ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ 
πολὺ τὸ πνεῦμα), yet, as he adds, showing in their faces signs of a 
suffocating feeling. See Svoboda, Zhe Seven Churches of Asia, 
1869, p. 29 sqq.; Cockerell apud Leake, Journal of a Tour in 
Asia Minor, 1824, p. 342. A comparison of Cockerell and 
Svoboda’s experiments shows that, as Lavorde also implies, the 
vapour is not always equally fatal. The region was noted for 
earthquakes. 

Notwithstanding its affinities with Gnosticism, the Colossian 
heresy must be regarded as belonging to an earlier stage than 
the developed Gnosticism usually understood by that name, even 
earlier, indeed, than Cerinthus. There is, for example, no 
allusion to the aeons of later Gnosticism, nor to the properly 
Gnostic conception of the relation of the demiurgic agency to the 
supreme God. “That relation (says Lightfoot) was represented, 
first, as imperfect appreciation ; next, as entire ignorance ; lastly, 
as direct antagonism. The second and third are the standing 
points of Cerinthus and of the later Gnostic teachers respectively. 
The first was probably the position of the Colossian false teachers. 
The imperfections of the natural world, they would urge, were due 
to the limited capacities of these angels to whom the demiurgic 

Z : 


] THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [8.2 


work was committed, and to their imperfect sympathy with the 
supreme God; but, at the same time, they might fitly receive 
worship as mediators between God and man; and, indeed, 
humanity seemed in its weakness to need the intervention of 
some such beings less remote from itself than the highest heaven.” 
Hence the references in the Epistle to the ταπεινοφροσύνη in con- 
nexion with this angel worship. 

St. Paul assures his readers, with an authority which he clearly 
expects them to accept, that the gospel they had learned from 
Epaphras required no such addition as the false teachers pressed 
upon them. He points out to them that they are members of a 
body of which the Head, Christ, was supreme above all these 
angelic powers of whatever kind. 


§ 2. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE 
COLOSSIANS. 


There is no certain trace of the Epistle in Clemens Romanus 
or in Hermas. Barnabas, however, has a distinct allusion to Col. 
i. 16 in xii. 7, τὴν δόξαν Tod ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα, καὶ εἰς αὐτόν. 
Ignatius, Zph. x. 3, has ἑδραῖοι τῇ πίστει, and so Polycarp, pA a 
doubtless from Col. 1. 23. Probably also the division into dparot 
καὶ ἀορατοί, in combination with τὰ ἐπουράνια, in Ign. Smyrna. vi. 1, 
may be another allusion to i. 16. The connexion also of idolatry 
and covetousness in Polyc. xi. 2 may have been suggested by 
Colm. 123, 20, 111. 5. Justin, Dial. p. 311 (Ixxxv), calls Christ 
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, after Col. i. 15 (cf. πρωτότοκον τῶν πάντων 
ποιημάτων, p. 310); ; also p. 326 (xcvi), πρωτότοκον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πρὸ 
πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων. Considering the frequent use of the Epistle 
to the Ephesians, it is remarkable that the traces of this Epistle 
previous to Irenaeus are so few and uncertain. Its shortness 
seems an inadequate explanation. Probably the true account is 
that, the Epistle being so largely controversial, its use would be less 
familiar to those who had no concern with the heresies with which 
it deals. About its early and uncontroverted reception as the 
work of St. Paul, there is no doubt. Irenaeus, ili. 14. 1, says: 
“Tterum in ea epistola quae est ad Colossenses ait: ‘Salutat vos 
Lucas medicus dilectus.’” In the following section he quotes 
Col. i. 21, 22, and, indeed, he cites passages from every chapter. 

Clement of Alexandria, S¢vom. 1. 1, says: Kav τῇ πρὸς Kodoo- 
σαεῖς ἐπιστολῃ) γουθετοῖντες, γράφει, πάντα ἄνθρωπον, κ.τ.λ. = Col. 
i. 28, and again in several other places he cites the Epistle. 

Tertullian also cites passages from each chapter. Origen, 
contra Cels. v. 8, quotes ii. 18, 19, as from St. Paul to the 
Colossians. 


8.9] GENUINENESS OF EPISTLE TO THE COLGSSIANS li 


Marcion received the Ep. as St. Paul’s, and the school of 
Valentinus also recognised it. 

In the Muratorian Canon it has the same place as in our MSS. 
The external evidence for the genuineness is in no wise defective, 
nor was any question raised on the point until Mayerhoff (Der 
Brief an die Kolosser, u.s.w. 1838) contested it on the grounds of 
vocabulary, style, and differences from St. Paul in thought and 
expression ; and, in addition to these, its relation to the Epistle to 
the Ephesians, which he considered to be genuine, and its supposed 
reference to Cerinthus. Many critics followed his lead, including 
Baur, Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, etc., rejecting, however, the Epistle to 
the Ephesians also. Ewald, partly followed by Renan, explained 
what seemed un-Pauline in the Epistle by the supposition that 
Timothy wrote it under the apostle’s direction,—an hypothesis 
excluded by i. 23, ii. 1, 5. De Wette replied to Mayerhoff’s argu 
ments, rejecting, however, the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

Holtzmann, as we have seen in the Introduction to the latter 
Epistle, regarded the present Epistle as an expansion by an inter- 
polator of a short, genuine Epistle, being led to this conclusion by 
a careful critical examination of certain parallel passages in the two 
Epistles, the result of whith was to show conclusively that it was 
impossible to maintain either, with Mayerhoff, the priority in every 
case of Eph., or, with De Wette, that of Col.t 

As a specimen of his restoration of the original nucleus of the 
latter Epistle, the following may suffice. Ch. 1. 9-29 reads as 
follows :— 

Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς οὐ παυόμεθα ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι περιπα- 
τῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ 
σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ 
εὐδόκησεν καταλλάξαι, καὶ ὑμᾶς ποτὲ ὄντας ἐχθροὺς ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς 
πονηροῖς, νυνὶ δὲ κατηλλάγητε ἐ ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ 
θανάτου, εἴγε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει ᾿ἑδραίοι καὶ μὴ μετακινούμενοι ἀπὸ 
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὗ ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν 
τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰς 
ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμενος κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνεργομένην ἐν 
εμοι. 

Of ch. iii. Holtzmann regards as original only vv. 3, 12, 13, 17. 

This is a very ingenious abridgment, and supposes extreme 
ingenuity on the part of the interpolator, who so cleverly dove- 
tailed his own work into St. Paul’s that, had Eph. not existed, no 
one would have suspected Col. of being interpolated. It would be 
strange, too, that the interpolated letter should so completely dis- 
place the Pauline original. It would seem, in fact, as if we were 
compelled to suppose it known only to this interpolator ‘ who 


1 For a list of the principal passages compared, see Introduction to the Z. 
to the Ephesians. 


lii THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [5.2 


rescued it from oblivion” (λγηζίζ, p. 305) only to consign it 
thither again. Holtzmann’s theory is, as Julicher says, too com- 
plicated to be accepted. In such a case, for example, as Col. i. 27 
compared with Eph. i. 9, 10, and iii. 8, 9, 16, 17; or, again, Col. 
111. 12-15 with Eph. iv. 2-4, 32, it is involved in inextricable diffi- 
culties. And as this seems to be generally felt, it is not necessary 
to examine his instances in detail. 

Von Soden, in his article in the Jahrb. fi Protest. Theol. 1875, 
limited the interpolations to 1. 15-20, ii. 10, 15, 18 (partly). In his 
Commentary ke still further reduces the interpolation to 1. 16d, 17, 
7.6. τὰ πάντα to συνέστηκε, Which he regards as a gloss (2 Ζγ2. p. 12). 

Against the genuineness is alleged, first, the absence of 51. 
Paul’s favourite terms and turns of expression, together with the 
occurrence of others which are foreign to the acknowledged 
Epistles. For example, δίκαιος with its derivatives, ἀποκάλυψις, 
δοκιμάζειν, ὑπακοή, σωτηρία, κοινωνία, νόμος, πιστεύειν, are absent, 
as well as ἄρα, διό, διότι, while it is noted that yap occurs only five 
times (or six if it is read in 11]. 24), as against thirty-six times in 
Gal. and some three hundred times in the three other great 
Epistles. But these phenomena are not without parallel in other 
Epistles or parts of Epistles of similar length. δικαιοσύνη occurs 
in 1 Cor. only once (i. 30), δίκαιος not at all. Both adjective and 
substantive are absent from 1 Thess., as well as the verb. σωτηρία 
is not used in 1 Cor. or Gal., while in 2 Cor. σώζω occurs but 
once ; ἀποκάλυψις is not used in Phil. or 1 Thess., and in 2 Cor. 
only in ΧΙ]. 1, 7, so that the first eleven chs. are without it. 
πιστεύειν 15 found in 2 Cor. only in a quotation, iv. 13 ; ὑπακοή not 
in 1 Cor. Gal. Phil. 1 Thess. ; νόμος not in 2 Cor. or Thess. Again, 
as to the conjunctions, ἄρα does not occur in Phil., while dpa οὖν, 
frequent in Rom., is not used in 1 or 2 Cor., and only once in 
Gal. διό occurs only once in Gal. (iv. 31, where Rec. has dpa), 
and διότι once in τ Cor., not at all in 2 Cor. γάρ is hardly more 
frequent (relatively) in Eph., which Mayerhoff accepted, than in 
Col. Its comparative infrequency in both as compared with Rom. 
and Cor. is clearly due to the more argumentative character of the 
latter Epistles. 

As to the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, they are not more numerous than was 
to be expected in an Epistle dealing with novel questions. In 
addition to ten words found only here and in Eph., there are forty- 
eight which do not occur elsewhere in St. Paul. But as Soden 
remarks, Paul had for a considerable time been under the new 
linguistic influence of Rome. Salmon quotes a very pertinent 
remark of Dr. Mahaffy, who compares St. Paul to Xenophon in 
this matter of varying vocabulary. He says: ‘‘ His (Xenophon’s) 
later tracts are full of un-Attic words, picked up from his changing 
surroundings ; and, what is more curious, in each of them there 


§ 2] GENUINENESS OF EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS _ liii 


are many words only used by him once; so that on the ground of 
variation in diction each single book might be, and, indeed, has 
been, rejected as non-Xenophontic. This variation not only applies 
to words which might not be required again, but to such terms as 
evavopta (Cumm. ill. 3. 12), varied to εὐψυχία (Ven. το. 21), εὐτολμία 
(quoted by Stobaeus), ἀνδρειότης (Anad. vi. 5. 14), all used only 
once. Every page in Sauppe’s Zexz/ogus Xen. bristles with words 
only once used in this way. Now, of classical writers, Xenophon 
is perhaps (except Herodotus) the only man whose life corre- 
sponded to St. Paul’s in its roving habits, which would bring him 
into contact with the spoken Greek of varying societies.” 

The long sentences, such as i. 9-20, 1]. 8-12, are not without 
analogy in other Epistles, e.g. Rom. i. 1-7, li. 5-10, 14-16, 
iii, 23-26; Gal. ii, 3-5, 6—- Ἐν; : Phil. τ ει (Phe. senes Οἱ 
relatives in i. 1 3-22 and il. 10-12 is remarkable, but not without 
parallel ; and in both cases the connexion shows that what is 
added in the relative clauses, though evident, had been overlooked 
by the heretical teachers. It was therefore properly connected by 
a relative. Anacolutha are particularly frequent in St. Paul. There 
are also many turns of expression which are strikingly Pauline, as : 
lin; ΠῚ 18: 23, W145, iv. 6, 17. In comparing the general 
tone of the Epistle with that of the other Epistles, it must be 
observed that St. Paul had not here to contend with any opposition 
directed against him or his teaching, nor had he to defend himself 
against objections, but was simply called on to express his judgment 
on the novel additions to the gospel teaching which were being 
pressed on the Colossians. This new teaching had not yet gained 
acceptance or led to factious divisions amongst them. Nor has he 
any longer occasion to argue that Gentiles are admitted to the 
Christian Church on equal terms with Jews; this question is 
no longer agitated here ; St. Paul’s own solution of the problem is 
assumed. Nor was he concerned here with the conditions of 
salvation, whether by faith or by the works of the law. If he does 
not adduce proof from the O.T., neither does he do this in Phil., 
where there might seem to be more occasion for doing so. 

The greater stress laid here on knowledge and wisdom is 
explained by the fact that the false teachers were endeavouring 
to dazzle their hearers by a show of profound wisdom to which the 
apostle opposes the true wisdom. Hence, also, his frequent use 
of such words as μυστήριον, ἀποκρύπτειν, ἀπόκρυφος, γνωρίζειν, 
φανεροῦν. 

Mayerhoff notes the hunting after synonyms as an un-Pauline 
characteristic of this ἐς Of his many examples it may suffice 
to give a few specimens : 1. 6, καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον ; 
ib. ἀκούειν καὶ uae 7, σύνδουλος [ἡμῶν], διάκονος [τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ] ; ) 11, ὑπομονὴ καὶ μακροθυμία ; " 23; τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ 


liv THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [§ 2 


ἑδραῖοι Kat μὴ μετακινούμενοι (see Eadie, p. xxvii). Many of the 
so-called synonyms are clearly not so; and even where they are 
justly so called, the other Epistles supply parallels. See, for 
éxample; Phil. 1. 3, ἡ, 9. 10, 22,005, 20, 22, 25: 

An objection to the genuineness of the Epistle, which would be 
serious if well founded, is that the Epistle combats certain errors 
of a Gnostic character which cannot have existed at so early a date. 
It is not enough, however, to show that errors of an analogous 
kind, but more developed, existed in the middle of the second 
century ; it is necessary to show that they could not have existed 
in the time of St. Paul. But we have absolutely no materials 
for forming an opinion on this point, except in the New Testament 
itself. The earliest Gnostic writer of whom we have definite 
information is Cerinthus. 

Indeed, Mayerhoff supposed the writer’s polemic to be directed 
against him. But although there is an affinity between the errors 
of Cerinthus and those of the Colossian teachers, a closer examina- 
tion shows that the latter belong to an earlier stage of development. 
There is no trace in the Epistle of the notion of creation by a 
demiurge ignorant of the supreme God, still less of that by one 
opposed to Him (as in the later Gnostics). Nor did the teaching 
of Cerinthus include asceticism. As to the view of Christ held by 
the Colossian false teachers, it was clearly derogatory, as we may 
infer from the emphatic assertions in i. 19, 11. 9 ; but the generality 
of the language there used shows that their opinions had not been 
stated with such precision as was the case when St. John wrote his 
Gospel, or, not to assume his authorship, when the Gospel bearing 
his name was written. 

Baur, on the other hand, regards the Epistle to the Colossians 
(as well as that to the Ephesians) as written from an early Gnostic 
point of view, at a time, namely, when Gnostic ideas first coming 
into vogue still appeared to be unobjectionable Christian specula- 
tion. The errors combated were, he thought, those of the 
Ebionites, who maintained circumcision, abstained from animal 
food, observed the Jewish Sabbath, and attached high importance 
to the doctrine of angels and religious worship of them, and, lastly, 
considered Christ to be only one of these: ἐκτίσθαι ὡς ἕνα τῶν 
ἀρχαγγέλων μείζονα δὲ αὐτῶν ὄντα, αὐτὸν δὲ κυριεύειν τῶν ἀγγέλων 
καὶ πάντων τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ παντοκράτορος πεποιημένων (Epiph. Haer. 
ἘΣ £0)! 

In which of St. Paul’s Epistles, says Baur, do we find τὰ 
ἐπουράνια Classified as they are in Eph. and Col. ἢ 

The reply is obvious ; the classification of the celestial hierarchy 
which we find in these Epistles is not Paul’s at all (as will be shown 
in the exposition), but that of the false teachers. 

In reference, again, to the assertion in Col. and Eph., that 


§ 2] GENUINENESS OF EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS lv 


Christ is the creative principle of everything existing, and therefore 
that to Him is attributed absolute pre-existence, Baur remarks 
that “1 is true that we find certain hints of similar views in the 
homologoumena of the apostle, but they are no more than hints, 
the meaning of which is open to question; while here, on the 
contrary, the absolute premundane existence is the dominating, 
the pervading element within which the whole thought of these 
Epistles moves.” For the idea that Christ’s activity comprehends 
heavenly and earthly things at once and in the same degree, there 
is, he says, no analogy in Paul’s writings, but we are here trans- 
ported to a circle of ideas which belongs to a different era, namely, 
the period of Gnosticism (S4 Paul, Eng. tr. p. 7). The Gnostic 
systems, says Baur, rest on the root idea that all spiritual life which 
has proceeded from the supreme God has to return to its original 
unity, and to be taken back again into the absolute principle, so 
that every discord which has arisen shall be resolved into harmony. 
And so in these Epistles Christ’s work is mainly that of restoring, 
bringing back, and making unity. His work is contemplated as 
a mediation and atonement whose effects extend to the whole 
universe. 

Accepting Holtzmann’s caution (p. 296), that when critics 
like Baur and himself speak of Gnostic colouring in the Epistle, 
they do not mean Gnosticism proper, we may reply, first, that 
according to the above statement of Baur, the root idea of 
Gnostic systems includes the emanation of inferior spiritual 
existences from the Supreme; and this can hardly be separated 
from the idea of the creation of matter by the inferior spirits, 
since it was just to explain the evil of matter that the theory of 
emanations, etc., was devised. Of these ideas there is no trace 
in the Epistle except by way of opposition. ‘The notion of succes- 
sive evolutions from the Divine nature, forming the links of a chain 
which binds the finite to the Infinite, is utterly opposed to the 
teaching of the Epistle; nor is it conceivable as a later development 
of anything that the writer himself says. It is, however, quite 
consistent with the teaching that he condemns. Secondly, the 
idea of reconciliation is wholly different from that of return to 
the unity of the Divine nature of that which has emanated or been 
evolved from it. 

Baur, indeed, admits the possibility that the conception of the 
work of Christ which is exhibited in these Epistles may be 
harmonised with the Pauline Christology and doctrine of atone- 
ment; yet it is certain, he adds, that with Paul these ideas never 
assume the prominence which they have here. It is a transcen- 
dental region into which Paul looked now and then, but of which 
he had no definite views, and which he never introduced into his 
Epistles from a taste for metaphysical speculation. 


lvi THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [32 


“ As even the Christology of these Epistles bears unmistakably 
the impress of Gnosticism,” says Baur, ‘we meet also with other 
Gnostic conceptions” ; and he draws attention especially to πλήρωμα. 
The Gnostic πλήρωμα is not the Absolute itself, but it is that in 
which the Absolute realises the conception of itself. According to 
the doctrine of the Valentinians, it is the sum of the aeons by 
which the original Divine source is filled. 

Now this, says Baur, is just the conception of the Pleroma 
which we find in both our Epistles ; the only difference being that 
there is no express mention here of a plurality of aeons as the 
complement of the Pleroma, and that not the supreme God Him- 
self, but Christ, is the Pleroma, since only in Christ does the 
self-existent God unfold Himself in the fulness of concrete life. 
He finds a further remarkable agreement with the Valentinians 
in the comparison of the relation of husband to wife with that 
of Christ to the Church, since, according to the Valentinians, 
the aeons were divided into male and female, united in pairs 
called syzygies. Hence he explains how as Christ is the πλήρωμα, 
so also is the Church—that is to say, she is the πλήρωμα of 
Christ ; since He is the πλήρωμα in the highest sense, she is τὸ 
πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμένου. 

The latter suggestion scarcely merits a serious refutation. ΤῸ 
compare the position of Christ as viewed by the writer with that 
of one of the aeons of the Valentinians, is to contradict the 
fundamental thesis of the Epistles, namely, that Christ is exalted 
- far above all existences, earthly and heavenly, by whatever name 
they may be called. Equally remote from the writer’s thought, 
and irreconcilable with it, is the conception of ἐκκλησία as an 
aeon co-ordinate with Christ. Indeed, the whole system of 
syzygies or duads was devised as a theory of successive generation. 
Nothing in the remotest degree resembling this appears in the 
Epistles. Throughout both, the relation of Christ to the Church 
is that of the head to the body; the figure of marriage is 
introduced only incidentally, not with the view of illustrating or 
explaining the union of Christ and the Church by that of man 
and wife, but in order to set forth the love of Christ as the Head, 
for His Body, the Church, as a pattern for the Christian husband ; 
and it is the headship of Christ that is used to illustrate the 
headship of the man—“ For we are members of His body.” The 
idea of the thing illustrated reacts in the writer’s mind on the 
conception of that with which it was compared, and so there grows 
up a new representation of the relation of Christ to the Church. 

As to the word πλήρωμα, so far is the conception in our 
Epistles from being just the same as that of the Valentinians, that 
the difference which Baur himself mentions is a vital one. What 
the writer so emphatically asserts is that the whole πλήρωμα resides 


§ 2] GENUINENESS OF EPISTLE TO THE ἘΕΡΗΕΒΙΑΝΒ Ϊνὶϊ 


in Christ, not a mere fraction of it, not a single Divine power only, 
as the Gnostic use of the word would suggest. That some such 
view as this, of a part only of the πλήρωμα residing in Christ, was 
held by the Colossian false teachers, may be fairly inferred from 
the writer’s insistence on πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα, κιτιλ. It is simple and 
natural, then, to suppose that he purposely employs a term common 
to himself and them in such a way as to combat directly their 
erroneous views. How can such a fact be supposed to indicate 
a Gnostic tendency on the part of the writer ? 

In fact, once it is admitted that the thoughts expressed in this 
Epistle (or that to the Ephesians) are capable of being reconciled 
to those of St. Paul, it is no longer possible to use the (supposed) 
Gnostic colouring as an argument against the genuineness of a 
writing which bears the name of Paul, and which in addition has 
such strong external support. It is true these thoughts have more 
prominence and are more developed here than in the acknow- 
ledged Epistles, but this is fully accounted for by the nature of the 
errors with which the apostle had to contend. ‘The circumstances 
of Rome, Corinth, and Galatia were not such as to call for such an 
exposition as we find here ; indeed, in the Epistles to the last two 
Churches, at least, it would have been singularly out of place. It is 
not to a taste for indulging in metaphysical speculation that we are 
to trace its presence here, but to the exigencies of the case. But, 
then, it is said that although St. Paul did now and then look into 
this transcendental region, he had no definite views of it. What 
then? If the Epistles are genuine, several years had elapsed 
since the writing of the four great Epistles. Was the apostle’s 
mind so rigid that we cannot conceive his views becoming moic 
developed and more distinct in the interval of five or six years? 
Nothing was more likely to further their development than the 
presence of erroneous teaching. Just as the articles of the 
Church’s creed took form only gradually as errors sprang up, so in 
an individual mind, even in that of the apostle, a particular truth 
would be more distinctly recognised and more precisely formulated 
when the opposing error presented itself. 

It may be remarked that Baur found traces of Gnostic thouglit 
in the Epistle to the Philippians also, the genuineness of which has, 
however, been acknowledged by almost all subsequent critics, 
including Hausrath (who supposes it made up of two Epistles), 
Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Reuss, Renan, Schenkel. 
Indeed, it may be regarded as practically beyond question. This 
is not without importance for the Epistle to the Colossians, for it 
supplies an answer to the objections to the latter Ep. founded on 
the loftiness of the attributes assigned to Christ. For it contains 
nothing that goes beyond Phil. 11. 6-11. On the other hand, the 
Epistle to the Colossians, as Renan observes, cannot be separated 


viii THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [8.2 


from the Epistle to Philemon. ‘The coincidence in some of the 
names mentioned might be explained by the hypothesis that the 
forger of the longer Epistle made use of the shorter. But the 
differences exclude this supposition (see Salmon, /x¢voduction, 
ch. xx.). Col. mentions Jesus, surnamed Justus, an otherwise 
unknown person, in addition to those mentioned in Philem., 
while Philemon is not mentioned at all. Again, while Aristarchus 
and Epaphras are mentioned in both Epp., it is the former that is 
called fellow-prisoner in Col., the latter in Philemon. But there 
is nothing in the Ep. to Philemon to suggest Colossae as the city of 
his residence. We learn his connexion with it only by finding his 
runaway slave Onesimus mentioned in Col. as “one of you.” 
Having learned this we observe further that Archippus, who in the 
private Epistle appears as an intimate, perhaps son, of Philemon, is 
mentioned in Col. in such a way as to suggest that he held office 
either there or in Laodicea. Certainly the way in which his name 
is introduced there is as unlike as possible to the contrivance of a 
forger. That Onesimus alone should be mentioned as Paul’s 
messenger in the letter to Philemon, but Tychicus with him in the 
public Epistle, is perfectly natural. 

Now the genuineness of the Epistle to Philemon is beyond 
question ; in fact, in the whole range of literature there is no piece 
which bears more unmistakably the stamp of originality and 
genuineness. ΤῸ quote Renan: “ Paul seul, autant qu’il semble, 
a pu écrire ce petit chef d’oeuvre.” Baur, indeed, felt himself 
compelled to reject it in consequence of its intimate connexion 
with Col. and Eph., and then set himself to confirm his rejection 
by an examination of the diction of the Epistle and of the circum- 
stances supposed. His argument is valuable as a veductio ad 
absurdum of his whole method. 

V. Soden remarks that there is a striking correspondence both 
in language and thought between the Ep. to the Colossians and to 
the only other document which we possess from the apostle’s hand 
during his Roman imprisonment, viz. the Ep. to the Philippians 
(as he does not accept Eph.). Thus as to language he compares 
πληροῦν in 9 three times, in Phil. four times: σπλάγχνα 
οἰκτιρμοῦ, Col. iii, 12, Phil. 1. 1: λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, Col. 1. 25, 
Phil. a. τὶς reper \igurative), Col. if, τὰ “Phill ai 32 faye: 
Col) ii, a; Bhi 1 ΠΟ: ἀπεῖναι, Cols τ: 5s "Phil. Mage 9 δεσμοί, 
(ΘοΙ σιν. τῷ, Philly: τ 17: τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ; Coli ἂν. 7, ΒΒ. πα το 
ταπεινοφροσύνη, (ΟΙΣ 15 25. iil. 12, Phil. 1..3: καρποφοροῦντες, 
Coll 1. Lo, Lee καρπόν, Phil. i. 11: ἀμώμος, Col. i. 22, 
Phil. ii. 15: τέλειος, Col. 1. 28, Phil. ili, 15: κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, 
x.7.., Col. i. 29, Phil. iti. 27: ἄνω, Col. iii. 1, Phil. iii. 14: τὰ 
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, Col. 11]. 2, ἐπίγεια, Phil. 111. 19: βραβεῖον, Phil. 111. 14, 
καταβραβεύειν, Col, li. 18. As to style, he compares the brevity of 


§ 3-5] PLACE AND DATE OF WRITING lix 


Col. iv. 17 and Phil. iv. 2; the introduction of a judgment by a 
telauve, Col. 1 25: Phill i. 28; i. 19: thessentences, Col. i, 9, 
Phil. i. 11: the prayer for ἐπίγνωσις, Col. i. ΟἿ; Phil. i. 9: the 
wish καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη, «.7.A., Col. ill. 15, Phil. iv. 7: the similar ideas, 
Sole, and, Phila. ro) Coll 18,and Phil mii; Col. i. 24 
and Phil. ii. 30: the references to what the readers had heard, 
Col. i. 7, Phil. iv. 9: and, lastly, the close correspondence of some 
peculiar dogmatic expressions ; see 1. 19 ff. 


§ 3. PLACE AND DATE OF WRITING. 


For these see Introduction to the /fvstle to the Ephesians, 
where it is shown to be probable that the Epistle was written from 
Rome about a.D. 63. The occasion seems to have been the 
information furnished by Epaphras of the dangers to which the 
Church at Colossae was exposed from heretical teachers. 


§ 4. RELATION TO OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. 


For the relation to the Epistle to the Ephesians, see the 
Introduction to that Epistle. 

The relation to the Apocalypse deserves particular notice. It 
is especially in the Epistle to Laodicea, Rev. iii. 14-21, that we find 
resemblances. In that Epistle, St. John, speaking in the person of 
the Lord, declares almost in the language of St. Paul that He is 
the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, ἣ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ 
@eov,—an expression which does not occur (nor anything like it) 
in any of the other six Epistles. Compare Col. i. 15, πρωτότοκος 
πάσης κτίσεως. Doubtless there still remained some trace of the 
heresy which St. Paul combated. Again, Rev. ili. 21, δώσω αὐτῷ 
καθίσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ pov, κ.τ.λ., 15 very parallel to Col. 
ii. 1 and Eph. ii. 6, and here again there is nothing similar in the 
other Epistles. ‘‘ This double coincidence (says Lightfoot), affect- 
ing the two ideas which may be said to cover the whole ground in 
the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be fortuitous, 
and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the earlier 
apostle’s teaching on the part of St. John ” (p. 42). 


§ 5. VOCABULARY OF THE EPISTLE. 
List of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in the Epistle to the Colossians. 


3 aA > ‘4 3 ’, 3 A 9 ’ 

ἀθυμεῖν, αἰσχρολογία, ἀνεψιός, ἀνταναπληροῦν, ἀνταπόδοσις, 
> , 3 / > /, AS, 3 i , 
ἀπεκδύεσθαι, ἀπέκδυσις, ἀπόχρησις, ἀρέσκεια, ἀφειδία, βραβεύειν, 


1 


1X THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [3 6 


δογματίζεσθαι, δυναμοῦν (see Eph. vi. 10), ἐθελοθρησκεία, εἰρηνοποιεῖν, 
ἐμβατεύειν, εὐχάριστος, θεότης, καταβραβεύειν, μετακινεῖν, μομφή, 
νουμηνία, δρατός, παρηγορία, πιθανολογία, πλησμονή, προακούειν, 
προσηλοῦν, πρωτεύειν, στερέωμα, συλαγωγεῖν, σωματικῶς, φιλοσοφία, 


χειρόγραφου. More than half of these (18) are in ch. i. only. 


Words which occur in other Writers of the N.T., but not in 
St: Fae. 


ἅλας, ἀποκρίνεσθαι, ἀπόκρυφος, ἀρτύειν, γεύεσθαι, δειγματίζειν, 
ἐξαλείφειν, παραλογίζεσθαι, πικραίνειν, πόνος, σκιά, σύνδουλος. ‘The 
following are found in the Pastorals : Gmokintee κρύπτειν, 
πλουσίως. 


Pauline Words. 


The following are found only in St. Paul: ἀπεῖναι, ἑδραῖος, εἰκῆ, 
ἐρεθίζειν, θριαμβεύειν, ἱκανοῦν, ἰσότης, πάθος, συναιχμάλωτος, συνθάπ- 
τειν, φυσιοῦν. 


§ 6. CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


i. 1, 2. Salutation, briefly specifying Paul’s designation as an 
apostle, not by men, but by the will of God. 

Although the apostle’s purpose in writing to the Colossians was 
to warn them against the errors that threatened to creep in amongst 
them, yet with admirable delicacy, as writing to those to whom he 
was not personally known, he does not introduce his admonition 
until he has prepared the way for its favourable reception by a 
comparatively long introduction, which begins and ends with 
commendation. 

3-8. Thanksgiving for their faith and love, resting on the 
heavenly hope laid up for them. Mention of the hope leads 
naturally to the assurance that the gospel which they had been 

taught by Epaphras was the true gospel, universal and unchange- 
able, and proving its genuineness by the fruit which it was bearing, 
both amongst them and in all the world. 

g—12. Prayer that they may advance further in spiritual know- 
ledge, and that not speculative but practical, so that their life may 
be worthy of their profession. 

13 ff. The prayer passes insensibly into the positive instruction 
which will help to its fulfilment, and furnish a safeguard against the 
attempts that are made to mislead them. They have already been 
transferred into the kingdom of God’s beloved Son. It is in Him 
that they have their redemption. 

15-17. The pre-eminence of Christ, in His nature and in His 
office. In His nature He is superior to all created things, being 


§ 6] CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE Ixi 


the visible image of the invisible God, and all things having been 
created through Him, and holding together by Him. 

18-20. In the spiritual order also He is first, the firstborn from 
the dead, and the Head of the Church, all the fulness of God 
dwelling in Him. The work of reconciliation wrought through 
Him extends even to things in the heavens. 

21-23. The Colossians have their share in this reconciliation, 
the object of which is that they may be without blemish and with- 
out reproof in the sight of God. But this depends on their continu- 
ing steadfast in the faith which they have been taught. 

24-29. The apostle’s own qualifications as a minister of this 
gospel, privileged to know and make known the mystery hidden 
from preceding ages, namely, Christ dwelling in them. It is his 
business to proclaim this, and so to admonish and teach, that he 
may present every man perfect ; and this he strenuously labours to 
do through the power of Christ. 

11. 1-7. This effort and anxiety of his extend even to those 
to whom he had not personally preached, that they may be con- 
firmed in the faith and united in love, and, further, may learn to 
know the mystery of God. What they have to aim at is to be 
established in the faith which they have already been taught, firmly 
rooted in Christ, and living accordingly. 

8-15. The apostle has learned (no doubt from Epaphras) that 
there are amongst them teachers who are endeavouring to propagate 
mischievous heresies which would undermine their faith. He does 
not, indeed, adopt this rude manner of expression, but cautions 
them against being led astray. ‘The philosophy of which these 
false teachers make a display is mere deceit, and of human origin ; 
it is not a more advanced teaching, but, on the contrary, belongs 
to an elementary stage. Ye have already been made full in Christ, 
who is above all these angelic beings of whom they speak, since 
the whole fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him. Ye need no 
circumcision of the flesh, for ye have received in Him the true 
circumcision of the Spirit ; it is by Him that ye have been raised 
from death to life, and nothing remains to be added to His 
work, for He has completely removed the bond that was against 
you. 

16-23. Application of these principles to the practices incul- 
cated by the false teachers. With their precepts about meat and 
drink and days they would have you rest in the shadow, as if you 
had not already the reality. The angel worship which they 
inculcate is not the outcome of true humility, but of carnal pride 
in the fancied possession of superior knowledge ; and it leads to 
a setting aside of the Head, through union with which alone can 
the ge derive its nourishment and growth. 

ili. 1-4. Your aims and thoughts must be more lofty. Ye 


1ΧῚ] THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [8 if 


have been raised with Christ, and your life is now hid with Him. 
Seek therefore the things where He is, at God’s right hand. 

5-11. Sins to be avoided: not only the grosser ones of appetite, 
but the more subtle sins of temper, etc. 

12-17. Virtues to be cultivated: kindness, love, forgiveness, 
of which we have such a lofty example in God’s forgiveness of us, 
mutual teaching, and in everything thankfulness to God. Every- 
thing to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

18-iv. 1. Special precepts for the several relations of life: 
wives and husbands, children and parents, slaves and masters, 
the motive always being ‘‘in the Lord.” 

2-6. Exhortation to constant prayer and thanksgiving, with 
request for prayer for the apostle himself in his work, to which 
he adds further practical hints as to wisdom in action and 
speech. 

7-18. Personal commendations and salutations. 


§ 7. LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS: 
Commentaries on the entire New Testament are not included. 
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 


ALTING (J.), Azalysis exegetica in Ep. ad Coloss. Opp. Amstel. 
1687. 

ArETIUS (Bened.), Comm. Morgis. 1580. 

Bayne (Paul), Comm. on Ep. to Colossians. Lond. 1634. 

BUGENHAGEN. See /phesians. 

ByFIELD (Nicholas), An Lxposition on the Ep. to the Col. 
Lond. 1617, ad. 

Cauixtus. See Lphesians. 

CARTWRIGHT (Thos.), Comm. Lond. 1603, 

CRELLIUS, Comm. et Paraphrasis in Col. 

DavENANT (John, Bp. of Salisbury), Lxfositio Ep. Pauli ad 
Coloss. Cantab. 1627; transl. Lond. 1831. 

DaILLE or DALLAEus (Joannes), Sermons sur PE pistre aux 
Col. 3 tom. Gen. 1662; transl. Lond. 1672, again Lond. 
1841. 

D’OuTREIN (Joh.), Sendbrief, etc. Amst. 1695. (In German) 
Frankf. 1696. 

ELTON (Edw.), Exposition of the Ep. to the Colossians... in 
Sundry Sermons. Lond. 1615, ad. 

FERGUSON (Jas.), 4 brief Exposition of the Epp. to the Phil. 
and Col. Edinb. 1656, αὐ. 

GRYNAEUS (Jo. Jac.), Hxplicatio... Basil, 1585. 


§ 7] LITERATURE OF EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS _ Ixiii 


MELANCHTHON (Phil.), Zxarratio Epistolae Pauli ad Coloss. 
Witenb. 1559. 

MuscutLus (Wolfg.), Comm. in Epp. ad Philip. Coloss. ete. 
Basil, 1565. 

OLEvVIANUS (Gaspar), /Vofae, etc. Gen. 1580. 

Qurros (Aug. de), Comment. Lugd. 1623. 

Rottock (Rob.), Jz Ep. Pauli ad Col. Comm. Edin. 1600. 

SLICHTINGIUS, Comm. in plerosque IV.T. libros. Eleutherop. 
1656. 

Scumip (Seb.), Paraphrasis super Ep. ad Col.  Strassb. 
1696, ad. | 

Suicer (J. H.), Zz Zp. S. Pauli ad Col. Comment. crit. 
exeget. theolog. Tiguri, 1669. 

WooDHEAD. See Lphesians. 

ZANCHIUS (Hier.), Comm. Opp. Gen. 1619. 

ZUINGLIUS (Ulr.), Comm. Opp. Tiguri [1545]. 


Liighteenth Century. 


BAUMGARTEN. See /phesians. 

Boysen, L£rklarung, u.s.w. Quedlinb. 1766-81. 

GLeEIcH, Predigten. Dresd. 1717. 

Hazevoet, Verklaering. Leyden, 1720. 

KonineG, Ofenlegging. Leyden, 1739. 

LuTKEN, Predigten. Gardel. 1718, ad. 

MicHaELis. See “phesians. 

PEIRCE (Jas.), 4 Paraphrase and Notes on the Epp. to the Col. 
Phil, and Feb. after the manner of Mr, Locke. Wond. 1727, al. 

RoELL, £p. Pauli ad Col. exegesis. Traj. 1731. 

Storr (Gottlob Chr.), Dissertatio exegetica in Lpistolae ad 
Col. partem priorem [et poster|. ‘Tubing. 1783-87; transl. Edinb. 
1842. 

Streso, Meditationes. Amst. 1708. 

Tit (Salomon v.). See Zphesians. 

ZACHARIAE (G. T.). See Zphesians. 


LVineteenth Century. 


ALEXANDER (Wm., Archbishop of Armagh), Commentary ; in 
the “ Speaker's Commentary.” London 

BAuR (Felix), Comment. iiber ὦ. Brief Pauli au die Kol. mit 
stater Beriichsichtigung d. altern 14. neuern Ausleger. Basel, 1833. 

Barry. See Lphesians. 

BaUMGARTEN-CRusIus. See Lphesians. 

BEET. See Lphesians. 

BisPinc, Lrklarung. Munster, 1855. 


Ixiv THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [8 Cf 


BLEEK. See “fhesians. 

B6uMER (W.), Zheol. Auslegung des Pauli Sendschreiben an die 
Col. Breslau, 1835. 

BRAUNE. See Lphesians. 

DatM_Er (Ed. Fr.), Auslegung, u.s.w. Gotha, 1855. 

Decker, Bearbeitung. Hamb. 1848. 

EavIE (John), Commentary on the Greek Text of the Ep. of 
Paul to the Colossians. Edinb. 1855, 1884. 

Evuicott (Ὁ. J., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol), 4 Critical 
and Grammatical Comm. on St. Paul’s Epp. to the Philippians, 
Colossians, and to Philemon, with a Revised Translation. Lond. 

1857, a. j; 

Ewatp. See Lphesians. 

Finptay (ἃ. G.), “ Colossians” in Pulpit Commentary. 

Fratt (J. F. v.), Vorlesung. uber d. Br. Pauli an die Phil. Kol. 
etc. Tubing. 18209. 

GisBorNnE (Thos.), Lxfosition and Application... in Eight 
Sermons. Lond. 1816. 

HErnricus (J. H.), Zz Koppe’s Nov. Test. Graec. ete. Gotting. 
1803, al, 

HorMann (J. Chr. v.), Die Briefe Pauli an die Col. u. an 
Philemon. Nordlingen, 1870. 

HuTHuHER (Joh. Ed.), Comm. u.s.w. amb. 1841. 

JUNKER (Friedr.), Aistor. Krit. u. philolog. Comm. Munchen, 
1828. 

KAHLER (C. R.), Auslegung. FLislehen, 1853. 

KLOppeErR (A.), Der Brief an die Kolosser. Berlin, 1882. 

Licutroot (J. B., Bishop of Durham), St. Pauls Epistles to 
the Colossians and to Philemon, A Revised Text with Introductions, 

Votes, and Dissertations. Lond. 1875, al. 

MactarEN (Alex.), “Colossians” in Zhe Exfositor’s Bible. 

MEssNnER, “rk/arung. Brixen, 1863. 

Mouts (H.C. G.), “The Epp. to Colossians and to Philemon” 
in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Camb. 1893. 

SCHNEDERMANN. See Lphesians. 

STEIGER (W.), Der Brief Pauli an die Epheser ; Uebersetzung, 
LErklirung, einleitende u. epikritische Abhandlungen. Erlangen, 
1835. 

ΩΣ ΤΣ (G.), Praktische Auslegung, τέ.5.τῦ. Erlang. 1869. 

Warson (Thos.), Discourses. 3rd ed. Lond. 1838. 

Witson (Dan., Bishop of Calcutta), Lectures, etc. Lond. 
1845, αἰ. 

WIESINGER (J. C. Aug.), In Olshausen’s Comm. Konigsb. 
1850; transl, Edinb. 1851. 

WOHLENBERG. See Lphesians. 

Weiss. See /phesians. 


§7] LITERATURE OF EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS ἰχν 


Critical Discussions. 


See Ephesians, and add the following :— 


NEANDER, /flanzung u. Leitung d. christlichen Kirche, bk. iii. 
ch. 9, Eng. trans. (Bzblical Cabinet), vol. i. p. 374. 

-ANDAY (W.), art. “Colossians, Ep. to,” in Smith’s Di¢ctionary 
of the Bible, 2nd ed. Lond. 1893. 

SCHMIEDEL (P. W.), art. “ Kolossae” in Lrsch. u. Gruber’s 
Allgem. E-ncyclopddie. 1885. 

SmiTH (W. Saumarez, Bp. of Sydney, N.S.W.), art. ‘“ Colos- 
sians” in Lincyclopaedia Britannica, oth ed. 1877. 

Wicc_Ers (J.), ‘‘ Das Verhaltniss des Ap. Paulus zu der christ- 
lichen Gemeinde in Kolossae,” Zheol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1838, 
p. 165. 
















ae: λιν “sap aay =e 
ον Ls iy tee ἯΤ rin en 
᾿ ᾿ . ἫΝ ν εν ov ie Ψ Ἂν ᾿ Ὁ 





pains TAs ΤῊΣ ᾿ at Dane. ie 


n , ᾿ a roe δὰ ἐν : j 


A Le ᾿ Ti ie μι 1" ἫΝ " ᾿ ᾿ 
; ; Un ne Rina AN Tun. atm) dee an ον 





ἮΝ 
iy 
ἂ us Ξ 
‘ | 
> $i & 
οὐ Lt 
ἢ ; 
i 7h T 
} 
j 
1 hy 
| ἢ 
2 
¢ 
ἢ 4 y i 
᾿ ϊ 
Ἰ Ἢ . 
ι i] 
Al { f 
᾿ rm i i ᾿ ᾿ i 
Le ὺ ] 
δ᾽ 4 4 
on 
iy ‘ 


ner nee 
Wi y 

᾿ [ 1 i 
¥ ‘ 
, ω ' 

- 1 
we 
abel ᾿ i f ΟΝ { 
) ane os 

{ ' γῶν 

᾿ ou ΓΝ 


᾿ ὶ » ᾿ ie [ Ἂν Φ ἀφ Bt .f ῇ 


ἡ ς 





THE 


ΠΡ ΞΘ ΕΠ ΤΟ THE EPHESIANS. 


I. 1,2. SALUTATION. 


1, 2. Pau, a divinely appointed apostle, gives Christian greeting 
to the Church at Ephesus. May the heavenly Father, and the 
Lord Jesus Messiah grant you free grace and the peace which none 
else can bestow). 

1. Παῦλος. It is observable that he does not associate with 
himself Timothy as in Col. and Philemon ; perhaps because it was 
a circular letter without any personal allusions. 

ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Xp. In. in this order with BD P 17, 
Sy: Harcl. Boh. Ἰησοῦ Xp. SAGKL, Syr-Pesh. Arm. 

The genitive is not simply a genitive of possession (as with 
δοῦλος Rom. i. 1), although from a purely grammatical point of 
view it may be so called. But the term ἀπόστολος gives it a further 
import. ‘This word had not lost its proper signification, as we see 
in 2 Cor. vill. 23. Phil. 11. 25, ‘A commissioned messenger of—” 
clearly implies, not merely “belonging to,” but “sent by,” as 
“ Ambassador of the King of France” obviously means one sent 
from him. ‘The addition of κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν Θεοῦ in 1 Tim. i. 1 is no 
objection to this. See on Rom. i. 1. 

διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ. ‘These words are also found in 1 Cor. i. 1; 
Aeon a Coline Σ᾽ hin 11. ΠΕ. occurrence! mm Ζ Tim: 
sufficiently proves (to those who accept the Pauline authorship of 
that Ep.) that they are not added in order to enchance the writer’s 
apostolic authcrity, or to justify his undertaking to instruct a 
Church to which he was a stranger (von Soden on Col.), nor yet 
because he has in his mind “the great subject of what he is about 
to treat, and himself as the authorised expositor of it” (Alford). 
It simply expresses what was always present to his mind, that his 


mission was due to the special and undeserved providence of God, 
I 


2 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [I. 1 


not to any merit of his own. Compare 2 Cor. vill. 5. The same 
idea is expressed in 1 Tim. i. 1 by κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν Θεοῦ. 

τοῖς ἁγίοις (= Phil., Col.). In the earlier Epistles the address 
is τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ (Cor., Gal., Thess.). The substitution is not to be 
attributed to any incompleteness of organisation, for ἐκκλησία is 
used in Philem. 2, and exxA. does not seem to include the idea 
of organisation. The use of ἅγιοι certainly gives a more personal 
colouring to the Epistle as if addressed to the members of the 
Church as individuals rather than as a body. 

οἱ ἅγιοι, frequent in the N.T., is always a substantive (except 
perhaps Heb. ii. 1). It was a term transferred from the Israel of 
the Old Testament to the Christians as the true people of God, 
its primary sense, like that of the corresponding Hebrew word, 
being “consecrated to God.” ‘The notion of inward personal 
holiness becomes attached to it from the thought of the obligation 
laid on those who are so set apart to a “holy” God; and God 
Himself is so called as the object of supremest reverence. 

τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ], κιτιλ. The evidence for and against the 
bracketed words may be here summarily stated (for a fuller dis- 
cussion see Introduction). They are omitted in 8 B (but supplied’ 
in both by later hands). In cod. 67 they are expunged by the 
later corrector (who records many very ancient readings). To 
these we must add the MSS. mentioned by S. Basil (fourth cent.) 
and the text used by Origen. They are present in all other MSS., 
and Fathers and all versions. 

Their omission, if they are genuine, would be hard to account 
for. ‘That they should be omitted in consequénce of cri‘ical 
doubts as to the destination of the Epistle founded on its con.ents 
is beyond the bounds of probability. On the other hand, if the 
Epistle was addressed to a circle of Churches of whic Ephesus 
was chief, the insertion of the words would be natural. 

If we have to interpret τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοίς, κιτ.λ. the render- 
ing will be: ‘the saints who are also faithful.” This would by 
no means imply that there might be ἅγιοι who were not πιστοί, 
but would rather give prominence to the thought that the apostle 
did not recognise any as ἅγιοι, in the technical sense, unless they 
were also πιστοί The only difficulty is that τοῖς οὖσιν or τῇ οὔσῃ 
(with ἐκκλησίᾳ) is elsewhere followed by the name of the place 
(Rom., Cor., Phil.). Of course, if we suppose a blank space to 
have been left in the original letter the difficulty does not arise. 
But it is observable that in Col. i. 1 the same thoi ght is expressed, 
τοῖς ἁγίοις Kal πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ, where τοῖς ἁγίοις is to be 
taken as a substantive (see note there). - 

Others connect οὖσιν with ἁγίοις, “who are truly saints” 
(Schneckenb.), or with both dy. and mor. in the same sense, or 
understand τοῖς οὖσιν as = who are in every place where Tychicus 


I. 2, 3] SALUTATION 3 


comes with the Epistle (Bengel, comparing Acts xi. 1). Origen’s 
interpretation, ‘‘those who are,” need only be alluded to here. 
πιστοῖς May mean either “ believing” or “ faithful, steadfast.” 
The former sense is adopted by Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer, a/., on the 
ground that here in the address τοῖς ἁγίοις alone would not 
adequately define the readers as Christians, and that if we adopt 
the other sense we must either suppose the apostle to distinguish 
the faithful from those who were not so, or to assume that all the 
professed ἁγίοι were faithful. It is alleged also that “faithful to 
Christ” would have required the single dative as in Heb. iii. 2. 
The phrase in 1 Cor. iv. 17, ἀγαπητὸν καὶ πιστὸν ἐν Κυρίῳ, being not 
parallel, since ἐν Κυρίῳ belongs to both adjectives, Grotius, Stier, 
Lightfoot, a7, adopt the other signification, which the word cer- 
faialy has ia Eph. vi 21; Col. iv. 9 3/%> Tim. 1.125 2 Tim: i..2; 
fhe τς Jf it meant here “believing,” says Lightfoot,’ it 
would add nothing to what is contained in ἁγίοις. The use of the 
word with ἀδελφοῖς in Col. i. 2 is in favour of the latter view, 
which agrees with the classical use ; but when used in such a con- 
nexion as here and in Col. i. 2, this presupposes “ believing.” 
Since all the ἅγιοι ought to be “faithful,” it would be quite in St. 
Paul’s manner to designate them as such, unless he had positive 
reason to the contrary. Whether we take the word as meaning 
“believing” or not, we are not to connect it directly with év 
Χριστῷ as if=“ believing in Christ Jesus” (πιστεύοντες eis), for 
the adjective is never so construed. “Ev Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is best 
taken with the whole conception ἅγιοι καὶ πιστοί. Such they are, 
ΠΟΙ in Christ? - Compare vi..21 5 Cor. 1v.. 17 ; Ὁ]: 1.2. 

2. Καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. ‘And (from) the Lord Jesus 
Christ.” The rendering of Erasmus, “ Father of us and of the 
Lord,” is sufficiently disproved by Tit. 11. 4, ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ 
Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. See on Rom. 1. 7. 

3-8. Praise to God for the blessings of salvation. The grant- 
ing of these was no new thing in God’s purposes, but had been 
determined before the creation of the world. The object to be attained 
was that we should be holy and blameless, and with a view to this 
fle has admitted us to the adoption of sons through Christ, in whom 
we have received our redemption. 

3. Εὐλογητός, according to the analogy of verbals in -ros, means 
properly, not ‘on whom blessing is pronounced ἢ (εὐλογημένος), but 
“worthy of blessing,” ἐπαινεῖσθαι καὶ θαυμάζεσθαι ἄξιος Theod. 
Mops. Cf. μεμπτός, “blameworthy”; dparos, “ visible”; πιστός, 
“trustworthy.” In the N.T. it is used exclusively of God, and 
so almost always in the Sept. In Mark xiv. 61, ὃ εὐλογητός stands 
alone for ‘the Blessed One,” z.e. God, this being a frequent Jewish 
mode of avoiding the needless utterance of the sacred name. 
Here, then, we supply, not ἔστω, but ἔστι. See on Lk. i. 68. 


4 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [1. 9 


ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ K. The natural rendering is “ the God 
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” Θεός and πατήρ being in 
apposition (so Jerome, Theophylact, Alford, Eadie, Olshausen, 
W. Schmidt, Stier). But Syr., Theodoret, ‘Theod. Mops., followed 
by Harless, Meyer, Ellicott, take the genitive to depend on πατήρ 
only. It is said, indeed, that the former rendering would require 
te before καί ; but cf. iv. 6, εἷς Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων ; τ Pet. ii. 25, 
τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον. The expression, ‘God of our Lord 
Jesus Christ,” is used in ver. 17, and the fact that it does not occur 
oftener can be no objection. See also John xx. 17, ‘My God and 
your God.” Θεὸς μὲν ὡς σαρκωθέντος, πατὴρ δὲ ὡς Θεοῦ λόγου, 
Theophylact. Chrysostom also prefers this view. We have the 
same combination, ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ K., Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. 
τσ; (CobH. 312) x TePeret. Ὁ 

ὃ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς. “ Who blessed us,” viz. at the time of our 
becoming members of the Christian Church, or simply on sending 
His Son. ‘Theodoret well remarks that men in blessing God can 
only offer Him words that cannot benefit Him, whereas God in 
blessing confirms His words by deed, and bestows manifold 
benefits upon us. oppe strangely understands ἡμᾶς of Paul him- 
self. Besides the unsuitableness of this in the initial thanksgiving, 
κἀγώ, in ver. 15, 1S decisive against it. ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ. 
Blessings belonging to the spiritual sphere to which the πνεῦμα of 
man properly belongs. ‘This is not quite the same as “ referring 
to the mind or soul of man.” Compare Rom. viii. 4, 9, 10, where 
πνεῦμα 15 contrasted with σάρξ, and 1 Cor. 11. 15, where it is 
opposed to ψυχή. That these blessings proceed from the Holy 
Spirit is true, but that is not the signification of the word, which 
characterises the nature of the blessings, not their source. Nor is 
the meaning “blessings of the Spirit” made out by the passages 
usually alleged in support of it, such as Rom. 1. 11, “ that I may 
impart some χάρισμα πνευματικόν" ; τ Cor. xi. 1, “ About spiritual 
[gifts]”; xiv. 1, “desire spiritual [gifts].” Compare Rom. xv. 27, 
“The Gentiles have been made partakers of these spiritual things ” ; 
t Cor. ix, ταῦ, “We have sown τὰ πρὸ; x3) ἢ; ΠΡ aro, 
“spiritual songs,” and 1 Cor. xv. 44, σῶμα πνευματικόν. Surely, if 
“from the Spirit” had been intended, it would have been more 
naturally expressed by τοῦ πνεύματος. 

Chrysostom interprets the “spiritual blessings” as meant to be 
contrasted with the material and temporal blessings of the Old 
Covenant, in which he is followed by Grotius and others. But 
there is no hint of such antithesis in the context. 

These blessings are not to be limited to the extraordinary 
gifts of the Spirit, as πάσῃ sufficiently shows. As Theodoret 
remarks, they include ‘‘the hope of the resurrection, the promises 
of immortality, the promise of the kingdom of heaven, the dignity 


Ι. 8] ASCRIPTION OF PRAISE 5 
of adoption,” or more generally what St. Paul enumerates as the 
fruit of the Spirit in Gal. v. 22, love, joy, peace, and all Christian 
virtues. 

ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. ‘The adjective is found several times in the 
N.T. in the sense ‘ belonging to or seated in heaven.” Sometimes 
opposed to τὰ ἐπίγεια, as in John ill. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 4o, 48, 49; 
Phil. 11. 10; with κλῆσις, Heb. 11]. 1; δωρεά, 7d. vi. 4; πατρίς, 10. 
xl. 16; βασιλεία, 2 Tim. iv. 18. It will be seen that a local sense 
cannot be insisted on in all these places. ‘The contrasted word 
ἐπίγειος also has a transferred sense in Phil. iil. 19, τὰ ἐπίγεια 
φρονοῦντες, and Jas. ill. 15, (σοφία) ἐπίγειος, ψυχική. 

In the present passage τὰ ἐπουρ. appears to be interpreted by 
Theodoret as = heavenly things, ἐπουράνια yap τὰ δῶρα ταῦτα, and 
so Bengel, ‘‘declaratur τὸ spirituali.” But this would be to explain 
the clear and familiar term by one which is less clear, It might, 
however, be taken, not as an explanation, but as a further defini- 
tion of the nature of the blessings. ‘The article is not against 
this view, since it may properly be used to mark a class. It is, 
however, an objection that the phrase ἐν τοῖς éz., not found 
elsewhere, occurs five times in this Epistle, and in three of these 
places has certainly a local signification, viz. 1. 20, 11. 6, 11]. 10. 
The fifth (vi. 12) cannot be quoted as certainly local, so that it is 
not correct to say, with some expositors, that everywhere else in 
this Epistle the signification is local. ‘Those who adopt this 
interpretation, ‘fin the heavenly regions,” are not agreed as to 
the connexion. Beza and others refer the words to God (ὃ ἐν 
τοῖς οὐρανοῖς εὐλόγησας), but this is against the order of the words. 
Meyer takes them as a local definition added to εὐλ. πν., “with 
every spiritual blessing in heaven.” ‘The blessings of the Spirit 
are regarded as in heaven, and from thence brought down to us. 
Compare the description of the Spirit itself as ἣ δωρεὰ ἡ ἐπου- 
ράνιος. It seems more natural to connect the words with εὐλόγησας 
(Lightfoot), or rather with the whole clause «dA. ἐν. π. εὐλ. 
mv. Not, however, taking the words as expressing literal locality, 
but as designating the heavenly region in which our citizenship is 
(Phil. ili. 20), where the believer has already been seated with 
Christ (11. 6), ‘the heaven which lies within and about the 
true Christian” (Lightfoot). ‘Those spiritual blessings conferred 
on us create heaven within us, and the scenes of Divine bene- 
faction are ‘heavenly places’; for wherever the light and love of 
God’s presence are to be enjoyed, there is heaven.” So substanti- 
ally Harless, but connecting the words (as does Eadie) with εὐλογίᾳ. 

ἐν Χριστῷ" By virtue of our union with Him, and as 
members of His body. But it must not be left out of sight that 


1On ἐν Χριστῷ in St. Paul, see Weiss, 7heol. Studien τε, Kritiken, 1896, 
Ῥ- 7: 


6 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [I. 4 


it is also in Christ that God confers the blessing (iv. 32). Not 
as if = διὰ Χριστοῦ (Chrys.), as if Christ were merely the instrument. 

It answers the question, How? as the preceding clauses 
answered the questions, With what? and Where? the participle 
answering When? ἐν is omitted in a few cursive MSS., and in the 
edd. of Erasmus, Steph. 3, and Beza; but the omission is too 
slightly supported to deserve notice, except as accounting for the 
explanations of some commentators. 

4. καθώς, frequent in later Greek (from Aristotle) for the more 
classical καθάπερ, “according as,” expressing that the blessing was 
in harmony with what follows, so that it has a certain argumenta- 
tive force, but does not mean (as the word sometimes does) 
“because.” The blessing realised the election. 

ἐξελέξατο. Generally understood as implying, (1) the choosing 
out from the mass of mankind, (2) for Himself. As to (1), although 
the idea of choice from amongst others who are not chosen is 
involved in the form of the word, this is not always prominent. 
For example, in Luke ix. 35, 6 vids μου ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος (the true 
reading), we can hardly say, with Meyer, that it is as chosen out 
of all that is man that Christ is so called (cf. Luke xxii. 35, 6 τοῦ 
Θεοῦ ἐκλεκτός). Here what is chiefly in view is not the fact of 
“selection” (Alford), but the end for which the choice was 
made, εἶναι ἡμᾶς, κιτιλ. Oltramare argues from the aorist being 
used, that the election is an act repeated whenever the call is 
heard. God, before the creation of the world, formed the plan of 
saving man (all sinners) in Christ. The condition of faith is 
implicitly contained. The plan is historically realised under the 
forms of κλῆσις and ἐκλογή. Every man who by faith accepts the 

“call is ἐκλεκτός.“ The second element, for Himself, as implied in 
the middle voice, must not be pressed too far; cf. Acts vi. 5, 
“They chose Stephen” (ἐξελέξαντο) ; xv. 22, 25, “to choose out 
men and send them.” See Dale, Oz ΜΚ: Lect. ii. p. 31. 

ἐν αὐτῴ, not ἐν αὑτῷ, as Morus, Holzh. (and G, which has 
ἑαυτῷ without ev), which would be quite superfluous, but ev 
Χριστῷ, as the context also shows. In Christ as our Head, not 
merely διὰ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίστεως, as Chrysostom. Christ is the 
spiritual Head as Adam was the natural. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 22, 
“As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” ; 
and Gal. iii. 16, “thy seed ὅς ἐστι Χριστός." Believers were 
viewed in God’s purpose as being in Christ adopted as sons 
through Him, it being God’s purpose to sum up all things in 
Him \(ver. τὴ ‘Comp. τοι: sa, Ὁ 

πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. The same expression occurs John 
ΧΙ. 24; τ Pet. 1. 20. ἀπὸ κατ. x. is found several times (twice in 
Heb.), but neither expression occurs elsewhere in St. Paul. It is 
Ξ- ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων, 111. 9, “from all eternity.” 


I. 4] ASCRIPTION OF PRAISE 7 


εἶναι ἡμᾶς. The infinitive completes the notion of the verb, 
expressing the purpose of the ἐκλογή -- ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἵνα ἅγιοι ὦμεν 
καὶ ἄμωμοι, Chrys. Cf. Col. i. 22, ἀποκατήλλαξεν παραστῆσαι 
ὕμας, K.7.A. The usage is quite classical. 

ἅγιοι and ἄμωμοι give the positive and negative sides of the 
idea. ἄμωμος properly means ‘without blame.” In the Sept. it 
is used of sacrificial victims, in the sense “without blemish” ; 
the word μῶμος having been adopted by the translators as the 
rendering of the Hebrew for “ blemish,” “‘ spot,” on account of its 
resemblance in sound to the Hebrew mim. In this sense μῶμος 
occurs in 2 Pet. ii. 13, σπῖλοι καὶ μῶμοι. The adj. ἄμωμος is used 
in the signification ‘‘ without blemish” in Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. 1. 19. 
St. Paul uses the word here and v. 27, also Phil. ii, 15 (true text) 
and Col. i. 22. In the last-mentioned place ἀνεγκλητούς is added 
to ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους, and this favours the interpretation ‘ blame- 
less.” In Phil. ii. 15, also, ἄμωμα seems parallel to ἄμεμπτοι, and 
is the opposite of μωμητά in the passage Deut. xxxii. 5, which is 
there alluded to. On the other hand, in Eph. v. 27 the reference 
to σπῖλον ἢ ῥυτίδα in the context favours the other sense. How- 
ever, as there is no reference to a victim in any of these three 
places, there seems to be no sufficient reason for departing from 
the proper Greek sense. In Jude 24 either sense would be 
suitable, but in Rev. xiv. 5 “blameless” is better, for the con- 
nexion is “in their mouth.” The word is so understood here by 
Chrysostom and Theophylact, ἅγιος 6 τῆς πίστεως μετέχων: ἄμωμος 
δὲ ὁ κατὰ τὸν βίον ἀνεπίληπτος, Theoph. ; ἄμωμος ὁ ἀνεπίληπτον βίον 
μετίων (ἔχων, Catena), Chrys. 

Is this dy. καὶ ἄμ. εἶναι to be understood of the actual spiritual 
and moral state (sanctification), or of righteousness imputed 
(justification)? Harless and Meyer strongly maintain the latter 
view, which is also adopted by Moule on the ground of the 
context, while Harless even thinks that this alone agrees with 
apostolic teaching. The fact appears to be the very opposite. 
The ultimate end of God’s choice, as of Christ’s work, is sancti- ~ 
fication. Compare Phil. ii. 14, ‘‘Do all things without mur- 
murings and disputings, that ye may be blameless and harmless 
children of God ἄμωμα (true text), . . . among whom ye are seen 
as lights in the world.” In v. 27 words similar to the present are 
used of a future ideal not yet attained. So Col. i. 22 compared 
with 21, 23, 28, 29; 1 Thess. iv. 7, “God hath called us, not ἐπὶ 
ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, but ἐν ἁγιασμῷ." Compare the same Ep. v. 23; 2 Thess. 
ii. 13, ‘God chose you from the beginning εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ 
πνεύματος." And very distinctly Tit. ii. 14, ‘‘Gave Himself for us, 
that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself 
a people. . . . zealous of good works.” Indeed, 85. Eadie 
observes, “the phrase ‘holy and without blame’ is never once 


8 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [1. 5 


applied to our complete justification before God. . .. Men are 
not regarded by God as innocent or sinless, for the fact of their 
sin remains unaltered ; but they are treated as righteous.” It is 
no objection to this that this perfection is not attained here, nor 
need we modify the meaning by understanding “‘as far as can be.” 
_What is here specified as the purpose of the ἐκλέγεσθαι must be 
the ultimate purpose to be achieved, and that is perfect holiness. 
This is the view adopted by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, 
and, amongst recent expositors, Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Mac- 
pherson, Oltramare, Stier. It is confirmed by the following words; 
nor is it really against the subsequent context; see on υἱοθεσία. 
κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, 2.6. not merely before ‘Men, says Chrysostom ; 
ἁγιωσύνην ζητεῖ ἣν ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὀφθαλμὸς ὁρᾷ. 

ἐν ἀγάπη has been variously joined with ἐξελέξατο, with ay. καὶ 
ἀμ., and with προορίσας. It is, however, too far removed from 
ἐξελέξατο (although Macpherson regards this as no objection) ; 
but it is less easy to decide between the other possible connexions. 
In support of the connexion with the preceding words it is 
alleged that the words ἐν ἀγάπῃ stand after the clause to which 
they ‘belong in iv. 2; 15, 16, v..2; Col i. 25° τὸ ποτε τ" 
(Lightfoot). But in all these cases the words preceding are verbs, 
or express a verbal notion (iv. 16), and are such that they could 
not be placed after ἐν ἀγάπῃ. Alford strenuously maintains that, 
“in the whole construction of this long sentence, the verbs and 
participles . . . precede their qualifying clauses,” e.g. vv. 3, 4, 6, 
8,9, το. But this is no reason why the qualifying clause should 
not be placed before its verb here, if the writer's purpose so 
required. Alford adds that this qualification of the preceding 
words is in the highest degree appropriate, love being the element 
in which all Christian graces subsist, and in which all perfection 
before God must be found. Nevertheless, the connexion with the 
adjectives “holy and blameless (or without blemish) in love,” 
appears less natural than with the verb, “having in love fore- 
ordained us.” It is fitting, too, at the beginning of the Epistle that 
God’s love ae be the first to be mentioned, and very fitting that 
emphasis should be given to the love which moved Him so to 
preordain, by placing ἐν ἀγάπῃ first. So Chrysostom and the other 
Greek comm., Jerome, and, among moderns, Bengel, Harless, 
Meyer, Stier, Eadie, Ellicott, ‘Soden, al. 

5. προορίσας gives the reason of ἐξελέξατο, it is logically prior ; 
but in the counsels of God there is no priority or order in time. 
Compare Rom. viii. 30, ots προώρισεν τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν. ‘The 
verb appears not to be found in any writer before St. Paul. The 
prefix προ has reference only to the future realisation, and does not 
of itself indicate that the act was πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. 

εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ “I. X. εἰς αὐτόν. ‘These words belong closely 


1. 5] ASCRIPTION OF PRAISE 9 


together, “unto adoption through Jesus Christ unto Him as His 
sons.” Christ is vids γνήσιος, Son by His nature ; we are sons only 
by adoption through Him. Cf. Gal. iv. 5, “‘God sent forth His 
Son . . . that we might receive the adoption of sons”; also 
Gal. 11. 26, “Ye are sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus” ; 
and Heb. ii. ro f. But this υἱοθεσία is not yet complete; we are 
still looking forward to its completion, υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι τὴν 
ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν, Rom. vill. 23.~— The figure of 
adoption 15 borrowed from Roman law ; the practice was unknown 
to the Jews. εἰς αὐτόν most simply and naturally joined with 
υἱοθεσία, “adoption unto Him,” viz. as His sons. It is putting too 
much into the preposition to find in it the idea of inward union, 
or to compare with 2 Pet. 1. 4, “partakers of the Divine nature.” 
αὐτόν 1s obviously the Father, not Christ, through whom the adop- 
tion is. V. Soden, however, argues strongly that ‘thus eis αὐτόν Would 
be superfluous, as υἱοθ. is a fixed terminus for the relation to God. 
The prominence of ἐν αὐτῷ in vv. 3-14 makes the reference to 
Christ more natural. The ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι ἐν Xp., ver. το, is the 
realisation of the zpoopilew εἰς αὐτόν. Col. 1. 16 is a close parallel. 
κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν. According to Jerome the word εὐδοκία was 
coined by the Sept. ‘‘rebus novis nova verba fingentes.” It means 
ΠΣ “σοοά pleasure, purpose,” εὖ δοκεῖν, “as it seems good to” 
“good will,” according as the satisfaction is conceived as in 
‘he action, or as felt towards a person. ‘The latter is the common 
signification in the Sept., but it also occurs there in the sense of 
“purpose,” Eccles. xi, 17, ἡ εὐδοκία αὐτοῦ εὐοδωθήσεται. Where 
the context does not point to a person towards whom the satis- 
faction is felt, the former meaning must be adopted; cf. Matt. 
ΧΙ. 26, οὕτως ἐγένετο εὐδοκία ἔμπροσθέν cov, Here, then, it corre- 
sponds to 7 βουλὴ τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, ver. 11. 


In the Sept. εὐδοκία is used frequently in the Psalms to render the Hebrew 
rdtsén, and, with the exception of a passage in Canticles (where it corre- 
sponds to 7Zz7zah), it is not found in the other canonical books at all. 
Their usual rendering of the Hebrew word is δεκτός. It cannot, then, be 
fairly said that ‘‘ the translators”’ exhibit ‘‘ purpose” or ‘‘ discrimination ” 
in their employment of the word. One translator often uses it, and some- 
times uses θέλημα when εὐδοκία would have been more correct; the others 
never. In Ecclus., however, εὐδοκία occurs fourteen times. 

Fritzsche (on Rom. x. I) has discussed the meaning of the word at length. 
The verb εὐδοκεῖν (which is an exception to Scaliger’s rule about the com- 
position of verbs) is found only in later Greek writers, Polybius, Diodorus, 
Dionys. Hal., in the signification ‘‘to choose or think fit (to do a thing),” 
sometimes with the idea of being glad to do it, as 1 Thess. ii. 8. Greek 
writers also said εὐδοκῶ τινι or ἐπί τινι, ““ἴο be content with something, or 
pleased with some person.” The construction εὐδοκεῖν ἔν τινι originated with 
the Alexandrian writers (I Macc. x. 47; cf. Matt. iii. 17; 1 Cor. x. 5, etc.). 





1 The word is rendered θέλημα several times in the Psalms, including xxx. 
5, 7. Inthe latter place Symmachus substitutes εὐδοκία. 


IO THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [I. 6 


They also said εὐδοκεῖν τι, a usage not followed in the N.T., and εἴς τινα 
(2 Pet. i. 17); but in the meaning of the verb the Biblical writers do not 
differ from the later Greek. The significations of the substantive follow 
those of the text. It means first vo/unzas, as in Matt. xi. 26, then “" content- 
ment,” Ecclus. xxix. 23, ‘‘ delight,” and as in Sept. most frequently ‘* good 
will.” See on Lk. ii. 14 and on Rom. x. 1. 

6. εἰς ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ. With a view to the 
praise of the glory (glorious manifestation) of His grace. The 
interpretations which make δόξης a mere adjectival attribute, either 
of ἔπαινος (Grotius) or of χάρις (Beza), are weak and inadmissible. 
Chrysostom gives the truer view, ἵνα ἡ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ δόξα 
δειχθῇ. 

“His grace.” We are so accustomed to use the word “grace” 
in a technical religious sense, that we are prone to forget the 
simple meaning which it so often has, “‘ undeserved bounty,” “ free 
gift,” δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, Rom. iii. 243 Kat ἐκλογὴν χάριτος, 
Rom. xi. 5; χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι, Eph. ii. 5.“ Herein lies the 
magnificence, the glory, of God’s work of redemption, that it has 
not the character of a contract, but of a largess” (Lightfoot). 
This glorious manifestation (cf. Col. i. 27) fills the mind of the 
apostle. He repeats in ver. 7 ‘wealth of His grace,” and in ver. 
12 “praise of His glory,” and again in 11. 7, more emphatically 
still, ‘the exceeding wealth of His grace.” Hence the verb 
χαρίζομαι has its signification ‘‘to grant of free favour.” 

ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς. ys is the reading of 8A B Aeth. Syr., and is 
adopted by Lachm. Tisch.8 Treg. Westcott and Hort. ἐν ἡ is 
the reading of DG KL and most cursives with the Vulg. It was 
probably a resolution of the somewhat difficult attraction. The 
substitution of ἧς for ev 7, especially when ἐν is so frequent in the 
context, is very unlikely. 

The attraction is accounted for by the construction χάριν 
χαριτοῦν, like ἀγάπην ἀγαπᾶν, 11. 4. Compare χάριτας χαρίζεσθαι, 
Dem: 796. 2ὃ: 

Χαριτόω, by the analogy of verbs in ow, means “ gratia afficere.” 
Cf. χρυσόω, tupyow, θανατόω, popdow. Admitting this, two mean- 
ings are possible, according as the χάρις bestowed is taken sub- 
jectively or objectively, that is to say, as expressing the state of 
the individual or the grace of God. Chrysostom takes the former 
View, οὐ μόνον ἁμαρτημάτων ἀπήλλαξεν, ἀλλὰ Kal ἐπεραστοὺς ἐποίησεν, 
‘‘rendered us loveable,” followed by Theodoret, Corn. ἃ Lapide, 
“‘sratiosos nos reddidit,” and most Roman Catholic interpreters, 
some of whom even use this as an argument for “ justitia inhzerens.” 
Chrysostom says, it is as if one were to take a leper and change 
him into a lovely youth. Thus God has adorned our soul and 
made it an object of beauty and love. The partic. κεχαριτωμένος 
has this sense in Ecclus. xviii. 17. Clem. Alex., loosely quoting 
Ecclus. ix. 8, substitutes it for εὐμόρφου of the original (/%aed. 111. 11). 


1 τ ASCRIPTION OF PRAISE II 


But both the prevailing meaning of χάρις in St. Paul, and 
more particularly the context, seem decisive for the other sense, 
for ver. 7 states in what respect God ἐν τῷ ἤγαπ., ἐχαρίτωσεν being 
joined to this by ἐν ». And the leading idea of the passage is 
the undeserved goodness of God. With the reading ἧς there can 
hardly be any question that this latter meaning is alone possible. 
It resumes the εὐλόγησας ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ Xp. οἵ ver. 3. 

ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ: The MSS. D* G with the Vulgate add υἱῷ 
αὐτοῦ, a manifest gloss. The expression is not found elsewhere 
in the N.T. of Christ, but in the Apostolic Fathers it is used of our 
Lord, 4.9. Ep. Barn. 3, ὃν ἡτοίμασεν ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ αὐτοῦ. 

7. ἐν ᾧ (=Col. 1. 14), not = διά or fer quem; it has a certain 
argumentative force, and can hardly be given a different meaning 
from the ἐν before τῷ ἦγ. ‘In him, in whom.” Rom. 11. 24, διὰ 
τῆς ἀπολυτ. THs ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, though parallel in substance is not 
parallel in construction, since here ἐν is closely connected with 
ἔχομεν. It is not apart from Him, but in Him alone, that we have 
our redemption. 


ἕχομεν. 1), Boh. read ἔσχομεν, which B, Boh. have in Col. i. 14. 


τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν. ‘The article appears to indicate that which 
you know of, τὴν προσαγωγήν, 11. 18 (but see Heb. xi. 35). 


On ἀπολύτρωσις Meyer remarks, ‘‘ the redemption, namely, from God’s 
wrath and penalties.” . . . ‘‘ The purchase price was His (Christ’s) blood.” 
Other commentators also say that the word ‘‘ does not mean simply deliver- 
ance, but deliverance effected by the special means of purchase. Even where 
the term is used in the New Testament, without any accompanying statement 
of the price paid, the idea of a ransom price is still present ” (Macpherson). 
The usage of the word and of its cognates by no means bears out this statement. 

First, as to the simple verb λυτροῦν. In the active it means primarily 
“‘to release on receipt of a ransom.” The idea ‘‘redeem by payment of 
a price,” is expressed by the middle. Quite similarly, when Homer speaks of 
the ransom of Hector’s body, it is Achilles who is always said λύειν, while 
Priam is said λύεσθαι. In the Sept. the middle λυτροῦσθαι is of very frequent 
occurrence, but not always with the idea of a price paid. On the contrary, 
it often means simply ‘‘to deliver.” Thus it is used of the deliverance from 
Egypt, for which no price was paid. Isaiah (xliii. 3) says, ‘‘I give Egypt 
for thee.”” Compare 2 Sam. iv. 9, ‘As the Lorp liveth, who hath redeemed 
my soul out of all adversity ”; Ps. cvii. (cvi.) 2, ‘‘ Whom He hath redeemed 
from the hand of the enemy.” 

So the English word ‘‘redeem” sometimes means ‘‘ deliver,” as in 
Romeo and Juliet, ““ Before the time that Romeo come to redeem me.” 

In the N.T. λυτροῦσθαι occurs thrice: Luke xxiv. 21 (‘‘to deliver 
Tsracl ἤν) ΠΠ|: 1 15 om tronarallimniquityices 1 Βεῖ- 1. τὸ, τὼ - trom 
our vain conversation.” 

The substantive λύτρωσις occurs in Plut. dvaz. xi. in the sense of ‘‘redemp- 
tion” (of captives). In the Sept. it is used Lev. xxv. 48 of the ‘“‘right of 
redemption,” and Num. xviii. 16. In the Psalms it occurs thrice in the 
sense of ‘‘ deliverance,”’ viz. cxi. (cx.) 9, and cxxx. (cxxix.) 7. In the N.T. 
it occurs three times: Luke i. 68, ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν τῷ aw αὐτοῦ ; ii. 38, 
τοῖς προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν ᾿Ισραήλ ; Heb. ix. 12, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑρά- 
μενος. 


12 THE EPISTLE TO ΤῊΝ EPHESIANS [I. @ 


λυτρωτής is used Acts vii. 35 of Moses simply in the sense of 
** deliverer.” 

The verb ἁπολυτροῦν signifies properly, not ‘‘to redeem” (λυτροῦσθαι), 
but to release on receiving a ransom. Ζ 225, [Pel | ap. Demosth. p. 159, 
Audiroxov . . . συλλαβὼν καὶ τὰς ἐσχάτας ἀνάγκας ἐπιθεὶς ἀπελύτρωσε 
ταλάντων ἐννέα. Plutarch, Pomp. xxiv. 4, p. 631 D, ἥλω δὲ καὶ θυγατὴρ 
᾿Αντωνίου. .. καὶ πολλῶν χρημάτων ἀπελυτρώθη. Plato, Legg. xi. 919 A, 
ὅποταν ὡς ἐχθροὺς αἰχμαλώτους κεχειρωμένους ἀπολυτρώσῃ. Polyb. xxii. 
21. ὃ, καὶ χρυσίου συχνοῦ διομολογηθέντος ὑπὲρ τῆς γυναικός, ἦγεν αὐτὴν 
ἀπολυτρώσων (wd. also 11. 6. 6). Lucian, of Achilles, χρημάτων ὀλίγων τὸν 
[Ἕκτορος νεκρὸν ἀπολύτρωσας. The verb occurs twice in the Sept. viz. 
Ex. xxi, 8, of a master parting with a female slave (E.V. ‘‘he shall let 
her be redeemed ἢ, and Zeph. iii. 1 (where the Hebrew word means 
‘‘licentious,” but was mistaken for one similarly written, which means 
“ὁ ransomed ”’). 

The substantive ἀπολύτρωσις is rare. Rost and Pahn give only one 
reference in Greek writers, viz. Plutarch, Pomp. xxiv. 2, p. 631 B (speaking 
of the pirates), σωμάτων ἡγεμονικῶν ἁρπαγαὶ Kal mo NEay αἰχμαλώτων ἀπο- 
λυτρώσεις (‘‘holding to ransom”) ὄνειδος ἦσαν τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίας. 
Thayer adds other references, Joseph. «{4πγ27. xii. 2. 3, πλειόνων δὲ ἢ τετρα- 
κοσίων ταλάντων τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως γενήσεσθαι φαμένων, ταῦτα TE συνεχώρει 
(of Aristeeus paying the soldiers for their prisoners). Philo, Quod omnis 
probus liber, § 17, p. 882, ἀπογνοὺς ἀπολύτρωσιν ἄσμενος ἑαυτὸν διεχρήσατο. 
Diod. Fragm. lib. 37. 5. 3 (Didot’s ed. il. p. 564, of a slave who had agreed 
with his masters for the purchase of his freedom); Scaevola, φθάσας τὴν 
ἀπολύτρωσίν. . . ἀνεσταύρωσεν. In the Sept. it occurs only in Dan. iv. 30, 
ὁ χρόνος μου τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως ἦλθε, 2.6. οἵ Nebuchadnezzar’s recovery. 

As far as usage goes, then, it would seem that if we are to attach to 
ἀπολύτρωσις the idea of ransom, the word will mean ‘‘holding to ransom” 

> or ‘release on receipt of ransom,” not ‘‘ payment of ransom.” In the New 
Testament the word occurs ten times, and in some of these instances it is 
only by a forced explanation that the idea of payment of a price can he 
brought in. In Heb. xi. 35, ‘‘ were beaten, not accepting τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν," 
the meaning connects itself easily with the classical use. It is ‘‘ not accept- 
ing release.” If the idea of price is brought in, it can only be apostasy ; 
but those who offer the ἀπολ. are the captors. Again in Heb. ix. 15, ἀπο- 
λύτρωσις τῶν παραβάσεων is nearly equivalent to καθαρισμὸς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν in 
i. 3. The transgressions were put away; there was deliverance from them. 
In Luke xxi. 28, ‘‘lift up your heads, for your ἀπολ. draweth nigh,” there 
is no suggestion of a price. The opinion that the price is the destruction of 
Jerusalem is very forced. 

In Rom. viii. 23, υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος, 
whatever interpretation is given of the latter words, they do not suggest 
the idea of a price paid. Nor does ἡμέρα ἀπολυτρώσεως, Eph. iv. 30, 
lend itself readily to this view. There are no doubt other passages in 
which it is easy to introduce the idea of payment of a price, but as 
the only ground for insisting on introducing this in every case is 
an erroneous view of the primary meaning of the word, further proof 
is required in each instance. Certainly, however, the word implies 
deliverance from a state of slavery. The slavery from which we are 
delivered is a slavery to sin, Rom. vii. 23. ‘* Captive to the law of 
βίη; it is not death as a punishment, but spiritual death as a state. 
Christ gave Himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, Tit. 11. 14. We 
were redeemed by the blood of Christ ‘‘from our vain conversation,’ 


1On ἀπολύτρωσις compare Westcott, Hed, pp. 295, 296; Ritschl, Rechif. 
u. Versohn. ii. 222 ff.; and Oltramare, 27 Joc. 


Τι 7) ASCRIPTION OF PRAISE 13 


1 Pet. i. 18. Release from punishment is so far from being the chief idea, 
that it sinks into insignificance in comparison with that of deliverance from 
sin, without which it could not be. Here there is an insuperable difficulty 
in applying the idea of ransom by payment of a price. To whom is the 
ransom paid? We were not in slavery to God, nor is release from punish- 
ment to be obtained by any sort of payment of ransom. Hence the notion 
of early writers, that the ransom was paid to Satan. So Origen: ἀπολύ- 
Tpwots 15 ransom of those who are captives and in the power of the enemies ; 
we were subject to the enemies, the ruler of this world and the evil powers 
under him; the Saviour therefore gave the ransom for us. This was at 
least logical. 

Grotesque as this conception may seem to us, it kept in view the truth 
that it is release from the power of evil that is the main thing; and this was 
rather put out of sight by the later view, which gave most prominence to the 
release from punishment. But this, apart from deliverance from sin, is 
what is truly impossible ; whereas given deliverance from sin, though suffer- 
ing may remain, one ground for it has ceased, and it will be felt more as 
chastisement than as punishment. 

For the notion of purchase, cf. I Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23, Christ, whose 
slaves we are there called because He bought us with a price, surely did not 
purchase us from God. So in the O.T. God is said to have purchased His 
people (Ex. xv. 16, etc.). See Dale, Lect. v. 


διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ. This suggests a different figure, that of 
sacrifice. On the idea of Christ’s blood in the N.T., see Westcott, 
Epistles of St. John, p. 3454. He argues that “in accordance with 
the typical teaching of the Levitical ordinances, the Blood of Christ 
represents Christ's Life (1) as rendered in free self-sacrifice to God 
for man, and (2) as brought into perfect fellowship with God, 
having been set free by death. The Blood of Christ is, as shed, 
the Life of Christ given for man ; and, as offered, the Life of Christ 
now given to man, the Life which is the spring of their life.” The 
thought of Christ’s Blood (as shed) includes all that is involved in 
His Death, and more, for it “always includes the thought of the 
life preserved and active beyond death.” See especially John vi. 
53-50. 

It is observable that in the parallel passage Col. i. 14, the 
words διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ are not added (in the genuine text). 

τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων (ἁμαρτιῶν, Col.). Why was this 
further definition of the ἀπολύτρωσις so carefully added both here 
and in Col.? Lightfoot (on Col. 1. 14) suggests that this points to 
some false conception of the ἀπολ. put forward by heretical 
teachers, as we know was the case with the later Gnostics, who 
applied the term to their own formularies of initiation. Thus 
Irenaeus (i. 13. 6) relates of the Marcosians, διὰ τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν 
ἀκρατήτους καὶ ἀοράτους γίνεσθαι τῷ κριτῇ, and (i. 21. 4) εἶναι δὲ 
τελείαν ἀπολύτρωσιν αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ ἀρρήτου μεγέθους. 
Not that any direct historical connexion between the Colossian 
heretics and the later Gnostics is likely, but the passages (and 
others cited by Lightfoot) “ show how a false idea of ἀπολύτρωσις 


14 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS (ze 8 


would naturally be associated with an esoteric doctrine of angelic 
powers.” 

κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος, k.t.A. A term of which St. Paul is particularly 
fond. Paley calls it one of his “cant” words ; “ wealth of grace,” 
“wealth of glory,” “wealth of wisdom.” Not to be resolved into 
“His rich grace”; but “the great fulness of His bounty.” The 
wealth of His grace, z.e. bounty, is shown by the great price paid for 
our ransom; cf. 11. 7, and Rom. ii. 4, τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος 
αὐτοῦ. 

8. ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν. The verb is transitive, for the attraction of 
the dative, very rare in classical writers, is not found in the N.T. 
(not Rom. iv. 17): For the transitive use of περισσεύω, cf. 2 Cor. 
ΙΧ. ὃ, δυνατεῖ ὃ Θεὸς πᾶσαν χάριν περισσεῦσαι (: (οΥ. ἵν. 15 is un- 
certain) ; ; 1 Thess. iii. 12. The meaning then is, “which He made 
to abound” (overflow) ; ἀφθόνως peas Theoph. The AV. with 
Calvin, a/Z., takes the verb intransitively, and therefore ἧς as 
attraction for ἡ, “in which He hath abounded.” A third construc- 
tion is possible, viz. that ἧς depends directly on περισσεύειν, since 
π. Twos may mean “to abound in.” Cf. Luke xv. 17 (περισ- 
σεύουσιν ἄρτων, some texts ; but WH περισσεύονται) ; ἵνα... παντος 
χαρίσματος περισσεύῃς, Ignat. Pol. 2; so Beza, “qua redundavit” ; 
or, as has been suggested (Ellicott, D. 164), Peet might mean 
“to make an abundance of.” ‘The first-mentioned rendering best 
agrees with the context. 

ἐν πασῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσε. The distinction between these 
two words is clearly and pretty unanimously stated by several 
Greek writers. Aristotle (2 21. Vic. vi. 7) says that σοφία 15 τῶν 
τιμιωτάτων, while φρόνησις is περὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα καὶ περὶ ὧν ἔστι 
βουλεύσασθαι ; andin lagna Moralia, i. 35, φρον. is περὶ τὰ συμφέ. 
ροντα. Philo (De Prom. et Poen. 14) says σοφία 1s πρὸς θεραπείαν 
Θεοῦ, φρόνησις, πρὸς ἀνθρωπίνου βίου διοίκησιν. So Plutarch 
(Mor. p. 443 F) says that φρόν. is deliberative and practical in 
matters which concern us; and Cicero (Of. i. 43) states that it is 
“rerum expetendarum fugiendarumque scientia,” while σοφία is 

‘rerum divinarum atque humanarum scientia,” which last is the 
common definition of σοφία, z.e. in Sextus Empir. and [Plato] Def 
411. φρόνησις in the same place 1 is defined (7n/er alia) διάθεσις καθ᾽ 
ἣν κρίνομεν τί πρακτέον Kal τί ov πρακτέον. It is clear from this that 
φρόνησις cannot be predicated of God; nor is this refuted by the 
fact that in Prov. ili. 19 and Jer. x. 12 it is so used. It is very 
fallacious to call each individual translator of an O.T. book ‘the 
Seventy,” and to regard such an occasional use as any evidence as 
to what was possible to an original author like St. Paul. With 
more reason might it be alleged that ‘ discretion” might be pro- 
perly predicated of God, because it is so used in the English Version 
in Jer. x. 12. In both instances a word was wanted to balance 


I. 9] GOD’S PURPOSE 15 


σοφία in the parallel clause (in the parallel passage in Jer. li. the 
word used is σύνεσις). 1 Kings iii. 28 is irrelevant. Solomon is 
there said to have possessed φρόνησις Θεοῦ. This is a literal 
rendering of the Hebrew idiom, expressive of the highest degree of 
prudence. 

Nor is πᾶσα σοφία applicable to God, for πᾶσα is not “Summa” 
(Wahl, a/.) ; it expresses, as Harless remarks, never intension, but 
extension ; πᾶσα δύναμις = “every power there is,” Col. 1. 11. πᾶσα 
ὑπομονή, “all possible patience” (12.). This is not invalidated by 
πᾶσα ἐξουσία, Matt. xxviii. 18; πᾶσα ἀσφαλεία, Acts ν. 233 OF 
πᾶσα ἀποδοχή, τ Tim. i. 15; or the classical 7. ἀνάγκη π. κίνδυνος, 
etc. In all these πᾶς is extensive not intensive. To say of God 
that He has done something πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, would imply that, con- 
ceivably, the wisdom might have been only partial. ἡ πολυποίκιλος 
σοφία, 111. το, is wholly different, being the very varied manifesta- 
tion or exercise of His wisdom. 

Hence, whether we connect the words with éep. or with γνώρισας 
they are to be understood of believers. This is confirmed by the 
parallel, Col. 1. 9, ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ 
ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει. Moreover, the main idea in the context 
is the knowledge of the Christian. The connexion with ézep. seems 
decidedly to be preferred to that with γυώρισας, against which is the 
consideration that the making known of the “mystery” is not the 
proof of the abundance of grace, but of its abounding in the 
particular matter of σοφία καὶ dp. Meyer notes the climax from 
the simple ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς to ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς. 

9-11. God hath made known to us His purpose to sum up ali 
things in Christ, whether they be things in heaven or on earth. 

9. γνωρίσας, 2.6. “In that He made known,” cf. Col. 1]. 3. 

τὸ μυστήριον. We must be on our guard against importing 
into this word (as is done by some expositors) the meaning of the 
English “ mystery,” as in Shakespeare’s ‘‘ Mysteries which heaven 
will not have earth to know.” It signifies simply “a truth once 
hidden but now revealed.” “The truth may be “ mysterious,” in the 
modern sense, but that is not implied in the word (so Lightfoot 
also, who, however, refers to 1 Cor. xv. 51 and Eph. v. 32 as 
instances of this accidental idea; but see 2057). Lightfoot thinks 
the term was borrowed from the ancient mysteries, with an inten- 
tional paradox, as the Christian “mysteries” are freely communi- 
cated to all, and so the idea of secrecy or reserve disappears. (Note 
on Col. i. 26.) In fact, it is almost always placed in connexion 
with words expressing revelation or publication. But there is no 
need to suppose that St. Paul had the heathen mysteries in his 
mind when he used the word. It appears to have been much 
more frequent colloquially than we should have supposed from the 
extant works of classical writers. In these the singular is found 


16 THE EPISTLE TOME BEMESTANS [I. 9 


once only, and that in a fragment of Menander, “ Do not tell thy 
secret (μυστήριον) to thy friend.” In Plato, /heaet. 156 A, the 
plural is used of secrets, “will tell you the secrets of these,” but 
with allusion to the μυστήρια in the context. ‘There are, however, 
other sources from which we may infer that it was not an 
uncommon word in the sense “secret,” viz. the Apocrypha, the 
Hexaplar translators, and Cicero. In the Apocrypha we find it in 
Tob: xii. ἢ, 11, “It is good to conceal the of π᾿ ΠΝ: 
Pudith: ii.-2, He (Nebuchadnezzar) communicated to them the 
secret (μυστήριον) of his counsel”; 2 Macc. xii. 21, “ disclosed 
the ‘secrets’ to the enemies”; frequently in Ecclus., and, as in 
Menander, in connexion with warnings against revealing a friend’s 
secret, ¢.g. XXli. 22, xxvii. 16,17, 21. In Wisd. xiv. 15, 23 the 
word is used of heathen “mysteries,” E.V. “ceremonies,” but in 
vi. 22, “I will tell you, and will not hide ‘mysteries’ from you.” 

In two places in Proverbs the Hexaplar translators have 
μυστήριον, “ A talebearer revealeth secrets,’ μυστήρια ; xL 13 Sym., 
xx. 19 Theod. So in Ps. xxv. 14, p. κυρίου ; Theod. “secret of 
the Lord.” It occurs several times in Daniel, where the AV. has 
Mceeret,? ds 1 18, τῷ; 27, 20. Cicero, 1s fond of using Greek 
words in his letters, and no doubt the words he uses were familiar. 
Writing to Atticus he says, “ Our letters contain so much ‘ mysteri- 
orum’ that we usually do not trust them even to secretaries” (iv. 18). 
And in another place he writes a short passage entirely in Greek, 
because it is about some private domestic matter, ‘saying, ‘‘illud ad 
te μυστικώτερον scribam,” 2.6. more privately (vi. 4). Ausonius again 
has ‘“ Accipe congestas, mysteria frivola, nugas” (Ep. iv. 67).} 
From all this we may conchide that μυστήριον was an ordinary, or 
rather the ordinary, word for “a secret.” In the N.T. the same 
meaning holds, only that there it is always (except in the Apocalypse) 
ea SEGIet revealed, ” and hence is applied to doctrines of revelation. 
Indeed, Rom. xvi. 25 might almost be taken as a definition μ. 
χρόνοις αἰωνίοις sine πο φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν (=Col. 1. 26). 
Such doctrines are the “mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,” 
Matt. xiii. rz (cf. ver. 35), which were communicated by the Lord 
in parables, Luke vill. το. There is not one passage in which 
this meaning is not suitable. Lightfoot mentions two in which, 
although the signification of the word is the same, there comes in 
from the special circumstances of the case the accidental idea of 
mysteriousness. They are 1 Cor. xv. 51 and Eph. v. 32. In 
neither place is this contained in the word. ‘There is, indeed, one 
place in which other writers suppose this idea to be contained in 
the word itself, viz. 1 Cor. xiv. 2. But the true interpretation of 
that passage is, “He is indeed telling secrets, but to no purpose, 

1 In the Liturgies, when the priest is directed to pray ‘‘ secretly,” μυστικῶς is 
the word used. 


I. 10] GOD’S PURPOSE IN CHRIST 17 


for no one understands.” It is not because no one understands 
that they are μυστήρια. This is, on the contrary, a polite conces- 
sion, as in ver. 17. In the Apocalypse the meaning “secret” still 
holds good, “the secret of the seven stars,” “the secret of the 
woman.’ 

The one doctrine which St. Paul frequently calls the mystery 
of the gospel was the admission of the Gentiles. It was for this 
that he was in bonds. 

τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ. Gen. of the object, the secret concerning 
His will. 

κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ. Not to be joined to μυστ., which 
would be tautologous with τοῦ θελ. air., but with γνωρίσας. It 
qualifies γνωρίσας here as προορίσας in ver. 5. €vd.=purpose 
(ver. 5). Compare Book of Enoch xlix. 4, “according to His 
good pleasure.” 

10. προέθετο. The prefix in προτίθεσθαι is local, not temporal. 
‘Set before oneself =to purpose ” (Rom. 1. 13), or “ before others ” 
(Rom. iii. 25). These three are the only places where the verb 
occurs in the N.T., but the substantive πρόθεσις is frequent = 
purpose, either Divine or human (Acts xi. 23, xxvil, 133.2 Tim. 
11. 10. Cf. προχειρίζεσθαι, Acts 111. 20 ; προαιρεῖσθαι, 2 Cor. 1x. 7). 

εἰς οἰκονομίαν, κιτιλ. “ With a view to a dispensation belonging 
to the fulness of the seasons.” οἰκονομία means either actual 
administration of a household, etc., or the office of an administra- 
tor. In the latter sense the knglish “stewardship” correctly 
represents it ; in the former, which is the meaning here, though 
“dispensation” in its original sense well corresponds, it does not 
suggest to the reader the idea of “‘ house management,” which is 
contained in οἰκονομία. This is founded on the conception of the 
Church as God’s household, 1 Tim. iii. 5 ; Heb. x. 21; τ Pet. iv. 
17; hence in this Epistle believers are called οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, 11. 19. 
In the Gospels in five parables God is figured as οἰκοδεσπότης, e.g. 
Matt. xx. 1, 11. In classical writers the word οἰκονομία extended 
its meaning from the management of a household to that of a 
state. ‘Thus Aristotle says that as household management is a 
sort of kingdom of a house, so a kingdom is οἰκονομία. It was also 
applied to systematic arrangement or management generally, as 
of the topics of a speech, of the parts of a building, etc. The 
kingdom of God had its own οἰκονομία, it involved a place or 
system of administration, the officers or οἰκονόμοι of which were 
the apostles and the ministers, 1 Cor. iv. 1; Tit. i. 7. For the 
later use of the term as specifically =the Incarnation, see Light- 
foot’s note, Eph. 1. 10; Col. i. 25. 

V. Soden maintains that ofc. here has the same meaning as elsewhere, 
viz. stewardship. The thought is that the object of the Divine purpose 


should come to its achievement through an οἰκονόμος. Until the οἰκονομία 
2 


18 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [π- 10 


began the plan rested in God. Who the οἰκονόμος is, is not said in the text ; 
probably, in the first place, God Himself (iii, 1). Moule more suitably 
regards the Son as the οἰκονόμος, the ‘‘ purpose” being that He should be 
the manifested Dispenser of the period of grace. 


τ. πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν. In substance equivalent to 7A, τοῦ 
χρόνου, as in Gal. iv. 4, but includes the conception of a series of 
καιροί, or seasons, the last of which is marked by the mission and 
work of the Messiah, so that now the series is closed. Cf. Mark 
1. 15, πεπλήρωται ὃ καιρός. Καιρός includes the notion of fitness or 
propriety. The καιροί are conceived as spaces filled with events. 
Since a x. is not properly the object of an οἰκονομία the genitive 
πληρώματος is not gen. of object but of nearer definition ; cf. κρίσις 
μεγάλης ἡμέρας, Jude 6. 

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι, “to gather up into one,” seems to be an 
explanatory infinitive supplying at once the content of the 
μυστήριον, the object of the εὐδοκία, and the object reserved for the 
oix. But asa matter of construction most easily connected with 
the nearest, viz. οἰκονομία. Some commentators prefer connecting 
it with προέθετο, others with μυστήριον. In classical writers 
κεφάλαιον means “chief point,” cf. Heb. vii. 1; and both 
κεφαλαιόω and ἀνακεφαλαιόω mean to sum up, summarise. So 
Rom. xiii. 9, τὸ yap οὐ μοιχεύσεις. . . ἐν τούτῳ TO λόγῳ ἀνα- 
κεφαλαιοῦται. So in a fragment of Aristotle, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι 
πρὸς ἀνάμνησι. And so Quintilian defines the substantive 
ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, “Rerum repetitio et congregatio quae Graece dicitur 
dv. . . . et totam simul causam ponit ante oculos” (Zzs¢. vi. I. 1). 
Compare the late Latin vecapitu/o, formed in imitation of the 
Greek. ‘Thus there is no ground for assigning to the prefix the 
signification ‘‘again,” as if there was in the word a reference to a 
bringing back to a former state, “in Christo omnia revocantur ad 
initium” (Tert. AZonog. 5) (Meyer, a/.). The Vulgate, indeed, 
expresses this idea to the exclusion of κεφάλαιον, “ instaurare.” 
But as it has the same rendering in Rom. xi. 9, we cannot con- 
sider it as meant for anything but a verbal equivalent. dva- here 
has the same force as in ἀναγινώσκειν, ἀναλογίζεσθαι, ἀναμετρεῖν, 
viz. the idea “one by one.” So Lightfoot, who remarks that in 
the interpretation alluded to Tertullian found a serviceable weapon 
against Marcion, who maintained a direct opposition between the 
work of the Demiurge and the work of Christ. Chrysostom asks, 
τί ἐστιν ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι; and replies, συνάψαι. When he after- 
wards says, πάντας ὑπὸ μίαν ἤγαγε κεφαλήν, We may suppose that 
he only meant a rhetorical play on words, since the verb is not 
derived from κεφαλή, but from κεφάλαιον. 

The middle voice is appropriate as implying the interest 
which God Himself has herein; cf. εἰς αὐτόν in 1 Cor. vill. 6; 
Rom. xi. 36. 


I. 11] GOD’S PURPOSE IN CHRIST 19 


τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ Ta ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. This is the reading of 
ΝΜ BDL, Vheodoret,! Oec. and some cursives, and is adopted by Lachm. 
Tisch. Treg. WH. But AGK, most cursives, have ἐν τοῖς op., with Chrys. 
Theodoret,! Theophyl. The variation in case after the same preposition 
has frequent parallels in classical writers. 

On the other hand, the usual contrast is ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς and ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 
(iii. 15 ; Col. i. 20, in which latter place there is a poorly attested reading 
ἐπί, perhaps from this passage). It must be admitted also (with Harless) 
that there is something strange in the use of ἐπί, ‘‘upon,” with τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 
for the nature of the case as well as the antithesis forbid us to understand it 
as ‘‘above the heavens.” 


τὰ πάντα shows that it is not the uniting of things in heaven 
with things on earth that is expressed. ‘These are named in order 
to express the greatest universality. Hencealso here, as with πᾶσα 
ἡ κτίσις, Rom. vill. 19 sqq., there is no occasion to introduce any 
limitation except such as the context demands. ‘To the spiritual 
as to the poetic eye all nature seems to share in what strictly and 
literally belongs only to intelligent beings; nor is it hard to see 
that there is a profound truth in such a view. The introduction 
here of this view (new in St. Paul) of the extension of Christ’s 
work to things in heaven, is accounted for by his having in his 
mind the teaching derogatory to Christ, which is more distinctly 
referred to in the Ep. to the Colossians. 

The things in the heavens were understood by Locke to mean 
the Jews (those on earth being the Gentiles), in support of which 
interpretation he refers to Matt. xxiv. 29. He is followed by 
Schoettgen, Ernesti, and others. Chrysostom understands the 
angels, while others interpret the words of the spirits of the just 
of the O.T. (Beza and many others). 


11. ἐκληρώθημεν, NB cursives generally, Vulg., Chrys. etc. 

ἐκλήθημεν, A DG, probably not a gloss but a result of ‘‘ parablepsy,” 
assisted by the greater familiarity of the latter word. The converse substitu- 
tion would be wholly unaccountable. 


ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν. καὶ Obviously is joined with the verb 
“for whom also,” not “we also,” as if it were καὶ ἡμεῖς. The 
purpose was “also” carried out. κλῆρος, properly ἃ lot, 
then, like the English “lot,” “a portion allotted,” or “ portion ” 
generally. It is common in both senses in the Sept. as well as in 
classical Greek. It is not= “inheritance.” The verb xAnpow= 
“to choose by lot” or ‘‘assign by lot,” hence in the passive, to 
be assigned, as ““ἐκληρώθην dSovAy.” In this sense Chrysostom, 
Estius, etc., understand it here, κλήρου γενομένου ἡμᾶς ἐξελέξατο, 
the word being chosen, according to Estius, to indicate that the 
election was not by our merit, and then προορισθέντες being 
added to exclude the idea of chance (Chrys.). 

The Vulgate agrees, ‘“‘sorte vocati sumus,” and many modern 
interpreters. But this would be entirely without parallel in the 


20 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [π 1 


language of St. Paul, with whom it is God’s gracious will that is 
the determining source of the exAoyy, not any θεῖα τύχη. 

Many interpreters adopt the rendering, “we were chosen as 
His lot or heritage,” deriving the meaning of the verb from the 
second sense of κλῆρος. So Bengel, Alford, Ellicott. The sense 
is good, but this meaning of κληρόω, in which the idea of chance 
is lost, is not sufficiently supported, and the idea of “heritage” is 
without justification. On the other hand, the interpretation, “we 
have obtained κλῆρος" (κλῆρος τῶν ἁγίων, Col. 1. 12), is unobjec- 
tionable in point of language; for κληροῦν τινι is classical, e.g. 
ev ἐκάστῳ ἐκλήρωσαν, Thuc. vi. 42, and it would be quite in 
accordance with analogy that κληροῦσθαι should be used in the 
sense ‘to be assigned a portion,” cf. φθονοῦμαι, διακονοῦμαι, Matt. 
xx. 28; πιστεύομαι, Gal. ii. 7. It is probably in this way that we 
are to explain the usage in later Greek writers, exemplified in 
Aelian, Vat. Fist. v. 31, aud |Hippocrates, 1287. 15.) (asthe 
former passage the serpent is said to have his heart near his 
throat. τὴν καρδίαν KexAnpwrat, κιτιλ. In the latter, Hippocrates 
says, πλείονα μεμψιμοιρίην ἢ τιμὴν κεκληρῶσθαι τὴν τέχνην. In 
both cases the verb seems to mean, not simply ‘‘to have,” but “to 
have as one’s portion or κλῆρος." ‘The sense suits well, as it 
corresponds to the notions κληρονομία and περιποίησις in ver. 14, 
as well as to the ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, ver. 3, and coincides with 
that of Col. i. 12 above referred to; we may compare also 
Acts xxvi. 18, τοῦ λαβεῖν. . . κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις, and 
XVil. 4, προσεκληρώθησαν τῷ Παύλῳ. The selection of the word 
is explained by the O.T. use of κλῆρος, which made it appropriate 
for the possession allotted to the Jewish Christians (so Meyer, 
Soden, Eadie). That these are intended here, although ἡμεῖς 
is not expressed before ver. 12, seems probable from the close 
logical connexion with ver. 12. Besides, if ὑμεῖς be included here, 
vu. 130, 14 would be a weak repetition. 

κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν Tod θελήματος αὐτοῦ. This specification seems 
meant to exclude all idea of any merit of the Jews in their 
κληροῦσθαι. As to the distinction between βουλή and θέλημα, 
and between the respective verbs, scholars are at issue. The best 
supported opinion is that βουλή involves the idea of purpose 
and deliberation, θέλειν and θέλημα denoting simply will. So 
Ammontius states that β. is used only of rational beings, θ. also 
of irrational. ‘Thus, as Grimm says, θέλω would express the will 
that proceeds from inclination, βούλομαι that from deliberation. 
Cf. Matt. 1. 19, “not willing aha) to make her a public example, 
was minded, ἐβουλήθη," etc. ; 1 Cor. vil. 36, ὃ θέλει ποιείτω ; 20. 39, 
Save S55 εἰ yon μαθεῖν DS UP Na ce the less definite may be 
used there, but βούλομαι would be quite suitable. Some scholars, 
however, reverse this distinction, Here the combination ‘‘ counsel 


I. 12, 15] THE SEAL OF THE SPIRIT 21 


of His will” seems intended to express emphatically the absolute 
self-determination of God. Compare 1 Pet. ill. 17, εἰ. θέλοι τὸ 
θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

12-14. We Jews had even in former times the promise of the 
Christ, which has now been fulfilled ; but the same blessings are now 
extended to you the Gentiles, and as the earnest of your inheritance, 
ye have been sealed with the Holy Spirtt. 

12. εἰς τὸ εἶναι, κιτιλ. It seems best to take τοὺς προηλπικότας 
as the predicate, according to the analogy of eis éz. in ver. 6 and 
ver. 14, and eis ἔπαινον δόξης αὐτοῦ parenthetically. The article 
is necessary, since what has to be expressed is not that the ἡμεῖς 
were to have had the attribute of having previously hoped, but 
that it was their special privilege to be those amongst the Chris- 
tians who had had a previous hope. And if προηλπ. is the subject, 
what reason can be given why προορισθ. εἰς ἔπ. 6. should be con- 
fined to them, seeing it applies equally to the ὑμεῖς ἀκούσαντες ? 
Besides, this would be only a repetition of vv. 4, 5. The chief 
objection made to this interpretation is that the distinction be- 
tween Jewish and Gentile Christians does not come in before 
ver. 13; but this is only an assumption, as the exposition of 
ver. II, just given, shows. We translate, therefore (with Harless, 
Olsh. Soden), “That we, to the praise of His glory, should be 
those who have before had hopes in Christ.” 

Meyer’s interpretation of τοὺς προηλ. as ‘ quippe qui” is incon- 
sistent with the article. 

To what does the προ. refer? προελπίζω might, of course, 
mean simply hope before the event, as προορίζω implies an δρισ- 
pos before the object of it appeared; and so Ellicott, Meyer, 
understand the word here, explaining the perfect as indicating 
that the action still continues ; but this seems fallacious ; ἐλπίζειν 
continues, but not προελπίζειν. 

It seems better then, with Beza, Bengel, v. Soden, to under- 
stand the προ. as referring to the time prior to the conversion of 
the heathen. Whether it be understood thus or as “before the 
coming of Christ,” it is appropriate to the Jewish Christians as 
distinguished from the Gentile. But some expositors deny that 
there is any such distinction here (De Wette), and understand 
mpo. as “before the Parousia.” But the καὶ ὑμεῖς of ver. 13, 
together with the ἀκούσαντες which is antithetical to προηλπ., seems 
decisive. Compare Rom. xv. ὃ, 9, λέγω δέ, Χριστὸν διάκονον 
γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας Θεοῦ, cis τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς 
ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων' τὰ διὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ, ἐλέους (Ze. not ὑπὲρ 
ἀληθείας) δοξάσαι τὸν Θεόν (not might glorify, as AV. and RV.). 

13. ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς. “In whom ye also.” There is much 
difference of opinion as to the connexion. Βεζα, Calvin, @/, 
supply ἠλπίκατε. But if προηλπ. is to suggest the supplement, 


22 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [τ 19 


it would be προηλπίκατε, which is inadmissible. Meyer and 
Alford supply the substantive in accordance with the current 
expression ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι, “in whom ye also are.” Not only is 
this extremely tame, but, considering the pregnant meaning of 
etvat in this phrase, it is hardly possible that it should be omitted, 
not having occurred in the previous clause. Erasmus, ἃ Lapide, 
Harless, a/., supply ἐκληρώθητες. The objection of Meyer and 
Ellicott, that ékAnp. would thus be limited to Gentile Christians, 
though it formerly referred to both Jews and Gentiles, loses its 
force if the interpretation of ver. 11 above given be adopted. But 
it is awkward to go back so far, and a much simpler solution 15 
that ἐν 6 is connected with ἐσφραγίσθητε, the second ἐν ᾧ being a 
resumption of the first, as in RV. with Theodore Mops., Bengel, 
Eadie, Ellicott, Soden. Thus the thought ἐν Χριστῷ, which 
governs the whole section 3 to 14, is with the second ἐν ᾧ once 
more emphatically brought forward, while πιστεύσαντες, as the 
necessary antecedent of ἐσῴραγ., is given its proper prominence as 
distinguished from the prior condition ἀκούσαντες. The repetition 
of ὑμεῖς before πιστεύσαντες is so far from being necessary that it 
would obscure the importance of that word. 

τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας. Cf. Col. i. 5. The word whose content 
is truth, ze. the gospel, κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν sermo veritatis quasi extra 
ipsum nulla esset proprie veritas (Calvin), in apposition with τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, the gospel, or good tidings, whose 
subject-matter was salvation. 

“In whom I say, when ye also believed, ye were sealed.” ἐν ᾧ, 
not to be taken with mor., for which there is no parallel in St. Paul, 
but with éodp. Meyer, however, with Calvin, Beza, a/., refers 
ἐν ᾧ to τὸ εὐαγγ., comparing Mark i. 15, πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, 
and Gal. iii. 26, πίστις ἐν Xp. I. But it is much more natural to 
understand it as=éev Χριστῷ ; and, of course, if the account just 
given of the first ἐν ᾧ be adopted, this alone is possible. Compare 
Acts xix. 2, εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐλάβετε πιστεύσαντες -- “when ye 
believed.” 

ἐσφραγίσθητε. Compare 2 Cor. i. 22, ὁ καὶ σφραγισάμενος ἡμᾶς 
καὶ δοὺς τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος. The figure is such an obvious 
one that it is needless to seek for its origin in any allusion to 
circumcision, called a seal in Rom. iv. 11, or in the στίγματα 
of certain worshippers of heathen deities. In later writers σφραγίς 
is used simply for “baptism”; but there is no reason to suppose 
such a reference here, which would be too obscure. 

τῷ mv. τῆς ἐπ. ‘The spirit of promise,” ze. which had been 
promised, ὅτι κατὰ ἐπαγγ. αὐτὸ ἐλάβομεν, Chrys., who, however, also 
gives a different view, as does Theoph. ἢ ὅτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας ἐδόθη ἢ 
ὅτι τὴν τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν ἐπαγγελίαν τὸ πν. βεβαιοῖ. The 
latter interpretation must be rejected, because the word πνεῦμα 


Ι. 14] THE SEAL OF THE SPIRIT 23 


does not contain the idea of βεβαίωσις. “The Spirit which brings 
a promise” would be a possible interpretation ; but it is not the 
Spirit that is the immediate bringer of the promise, and, moreover, 
the other view agrees better with the connexion. τῷ ἁγίῳ added 
with emphasis, “‘even the Holy Spirit.” 

14. ἀρραβών, a Semitic word (Heb. jay), which probably (we 
may say certainly) passed from the Phoenicians to the Greeks, and 
from them to the Romans in the sense of our word “earnest,” a 
portion of the purchase money given to ratify the contract, and so as 
a pledge of full payment. In the N.T. it is found only here and 
2 Cor. i. 22, ver. 5 (in both places dpp. τοῦ πνεύματος). It is to 
be noted, first, that the earnest is of the same kind as the full pay- 
ment. Compare Clem. Alex., Zc/. Proph. xii. p. 982, οὔτε yap 
πᾶν κεκομίσμεθα οὔτε παντὸς ὑστεροῦμεν, ἀλλ᾽ οἷον ἀρραβῶνα. .. « 
προσειλήφαμεν. So Irenaeus, “hoc est, pars ejus honoris qui a 
Deo nobis promissus est,” v. 8. 1. ΤῸ this corresponds ἡ ἀπαρχὴ 
τοῦ mv. Rom. viii. 23. ‘‘ The actual spiritual life of the Christian is 
the same in kind as his future glorified life ; the kingdom of heaven 
is a present kingdom; the believer is already seated at the right 
hand of God,” Lightfoot, who adds that the metaphor suggests 
and doubtless was intended to convey another idea, namely, that 
the recipient of the earnest money pledges himself to accomplish 
his side of the contract. ὅς is attracted into the gender of app. 
according to a usual idiom; cf. Mark xv. 16, τῆς αὐλῆς ὅ ἐστι πραι- 
τώριον, and Gal. iil. 16, τῷ σπέρματί σου ὅς ἐστι Χριστός ; also, 
perhaps, 1 Tim. iii. 16; Col. i. 2. 6 is, however, found in 
ABGL, Athan. Cyril, Chrys., and is adopted by Lachm., 
WH. 

εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως. περιποιεῖν Means properly 
“to cause to remain over, to preserve alive, save.” It is so used 
both in classical writers and in the Sept. In the middle voice it 
means to acquire for oneself. So in N.T. Acts xx. 28, ἣν 
περιεποιήσατο διὰ TOV αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου. The substantive περιποίησις 
occurs once in the Sept. in the sense of survival, 2 Chron. xiv. 13, 
καὶ ἔπεσον Αἰθίοπες ὥστε μὴ εἶναι ἐν αὐτοῖς περιποίησιν. This 
appears to be the sense intended here by the Sept. “for the 
redemption of those who live.” 

Most commentators compare the expression λαὸς eis περιποίησιν, 
1 Pet. ii. 9, which is taken from Mal. 111. 17, ἔσονταί μοι... εἰς 
m., where εἰς 7. represents the Hebrew that is alsewhere rendered 
περιούσιος; SO RV. “ Goa’s own possession.” It is ἃ serious 
objection to this that +. by itself has not the meaning “ people for 
a possession,” or ‘God’s possession.” In 1 Pet. it is λαός, and 
in Malachi μοι, that determines the meaning: indeed, as St. Peter 
is quoting from Malachi, his words do not supply a second instance 
of even this limited use of the word, nor any at all of N.T. usage. 


24 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [1. 15 


Meyer attempts to evade this objection by making αὐτοῦ refer to 
mepur. as well as δόξης, which is very forced. Another very strong 
objection is from the context. It is our inheritance that is in 
question ; it is of it that the earnest is received, and we should 
naturally expect that what follows eis would have reference to the 
complete reception of it. Instead of this, the interpretation quoted 
supposes the figure entirely changed, so that, instead of receiving 
an inheritance, it is we that are the possession ; a figure proper in 
its place, but here involving a confusion of thought which we can 
hardly attribute to St. Paul. Augustine seems to have understood 
the word as=“‘haereditas acquisita,” perhaps only following the 


Latin version, ‘‘acquisitionis.” So Calovius, “plena_fruitio 
redemtionis haereditatis nobis acquisitae,” a meaning of 7. which is 
unsupported. 


Beza remarks that we have to distinguish two deliverances or 
ἀπολυτρώσεις ; the one which is past and finished, the other, the 
complete deliverance to which we have to look forward in the 
hereafter. The former, he says, might be called ‘‘docendi causa,” 
ἀπολύτρωσις ἐλευθερώσεως, and, correspondingly, the latter ἀπ. 
περιποιήσεως, “liberatio vindicationis or assertionis.” His explana- 
tion of the construction, not the meaning of π., seems to be essen- 
tially the same as that of Theodore Mops., Theodoret, and 
Severianus. They, however, understand 7. as % πρὸς τὸν Θεόν 
οἰκείωσις. Thus Sever. says we are redeemed ἵνα περιποιηθῶμεν 
καὶ οἰκειωθῶμεν τῷ Θεῷ, 50 that the meaning is, “ With a view to 
our full recovery of our privileges as sons of God.” But this is 
open to the objection just now brought against the RV., that τῷ 
Θεῷ required to be expressed. We are compelled, therefore, by 
the necessity of the context, to understand περιποίησις of our 
acquisition ; only it is not a thing possessed, the object of ἀπολ., 
but possession or acquisition, the result of the complete ἀπολ. 
(so Soden, and, in substance, Macpherson), ‘With a view to a 
complete redemption which will give possession.” In the three 
other passages in which z. occurs in the N.T, it means acquisition 
or saving, in accordance with the classical usage, viz. 1 Thess. 
Vv. 9, gwrnpias; 2 Thess. il. 14, δόξης ; Heb. x. 39, ψυχῆς (cf. Luke 
ΧΧΙ. 19, κτήσεσθε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν). 

15-19. Therefore having heard of your faith, I thank God, and 
7 pray that ye may attain a deeper knowledge of the glory of the 
inheritance, and of the mighty power of God who confers tt upon 
you. 

15. Διὰ τοῦτος Connected by some with vv. 13, 14, only, ze., 
“ Because ye also are in Christ, and have been sealed,” ete., since it 
is only in ver. 13 that the writer turns to the Ephesians. But better 
connected with the whole paragraph, vv. 3-14, ‘‘ because this blessing 
which we share is so mighty.” So Oecum., διὰ τὰ ἀποκείμενα ἀγαθὰ 





I. 15] THANKSGIVING AND PRAYER 98 
τοῖς ὀρθῶς πιστεύουσι καὶ βιοῦσι καὶ διὰ τὰ ἐν τοῖς σωθησομένοι: 
τετάχθαι ὑμᾶς. ‘This is to be preferred, if only because διὰ τοῦτο is 
too emphatic for so limited a reference as the former. It is used 
in transition to a new paragraph in Rom. v. 12; 2 Cor. iv. 1; 
Col. i. 9. The last passage is closely parallel to the present. 
κἀγώ. ‘I also,” does not express co-operation with the readers 
in their prayers, or with others, of whom there is no hint; nor is 
it “I who first preached to you” ; but it simply notes the transition 
from ὑμεῖς. It is exactly parallel to καὶ ἡμεῖς in Col. i. 9, where 
the plural is used because Timothy is associated with Paul in the 
address. 
ἀκούσας is certainly in favour of the view that the Epistle was 
written, not to the Ephesians, but to readers to whom Paul had 
not personally preached ; and this appears to be confirmed by the 
similar expression in Col. i. 4. On the other hand, it must be 
observed that the same expression occurs in the Epistle to 
Philemon (ver. 5), Paul’s beloved fellow-worker, except that the 
participle is present tense. But this makes all the difference. 
Theodoret explains ἀκούσας here as referring to the progress the 
Ephesians had made more recently ; and so many moderns. But 
against this is the fact that in vv. 17 ff. this is prayed for. A frequen- 
tative force of the participle cannot be admitted. ‘The frequentative 
force of the aor. ind. is only the result of its indefiniteness (Luke i. 
55 ff.). ‘The time of the participle is defined by the principal verb. 
τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστιν. ‘ Apud vos” = ‘‘among you,” but in sense 
equivalent to τ. π. ὑμῶν, Col. 1. 4. Compare Acts xvii. 28, τῶν 
καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν ; xvilil. 15, νόμου τοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς -- “the law that 
obtains among you”; ΧΧΥΪ. 3, τῶν κατὰ ᾿Ιουδαίους ἐθῶν. This 
periphrasis for the genitive seems to have been frequent in later 
Greek ; cf. Aelian, V. A. ii. 12, ἢ Kat αὐτὸν ἀρετή; Diod. S. i. 65. 
ἡ κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπόθεσις (laying down the government). There 
seems, therefore, no good reason to say, with Harless and Ellicott, 
that the phrase here denotes the faith of the community viewed 
objectively (the thing in itself), in contradistinction to ἡ π. ὑμῶν, 
which expresses the subjective faith of individuals; or with 
Alford, that it implies the possibility of some not having this faith 
(whereas all are addressed as πιστοῦ. At most, perhaps, we may 
say that the form of expression was suggested by a view of the 
different classes of believers. ‘That ἡ 7. ὑμῶν could have been used 
is shown by Col. 1. 4. 
πίστιν ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ. ἐν indicates that in which the faith 
rests, as eis expresses that to which it is directed, “ fidem in Christo 
repositam.” ‘The absence of the article before ἐν marks the bind- 
ing of πίστις ἐν τ. Κυρίῳ into one conception. 
καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. τὴν ἀγάπην is omitted by 
δ ABP, Orig. Hier., inserted by N° DGKL, Syr. Boh., Chrys. The 


26 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS  [I. 16,17 


insertion is supported by the parallel, Col. i. 4. Internal evidence is strongly 
in its favour, as πίστιν εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους would be an unexampled expression 
(Philem. 6 is not an instance). The omission, too, is very easily accounted for 
by the passing of a copyist’s eye from the first to the second τήν. Lachm. 
and Westcott and Hort and RV. omit the words, but Tisch. Treg (not mg.) 
retain them. 


16. οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν, κιτιλ. εὐχαριστεῖν, in the sense 
“ oiving thanks, being thankful,” belongs to the later Greek (from 
Polybius onward). Its earlier meaning was “to do a good turn 
to,” and hence to ‘‘ return a favour,” to be grateful. 

οὐ παύομαι is usually joined directly with edy., while μνείαν 7. 
is made subordinate, as specifying the further direction of the 
εὐχαριστία. But the following ἵνα seems to require us to take 
pv. 7. as the principal notion, “I cease not while giving thanks 
for you to make mention,” etc. It is not clear whether μνείαν 
ποιεῖσθαι, Which also occurs ver. 16, Rom.1i. 9, Philem. 4, means 
“to remember” or “to mention.” It is used in the latter sense 
by Plato (Protag. 317 E; Phaed. 254 A). and other writers. Cf. 
BS. ὌΧῚ: 4; Sept. pv. ἐπ. TOV θαυμασίων αὐτοῦ. 

For ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν cf. Rom. i. το; 1 Thess. 1. 2. 


ὑμῶν (after preiav) of the Text. Rec. is om. by § ABD*, added by 
De KLP; Vulg. Syr. (both) Boh., Orig. Chrys. G have ὑμῶν after 
ποιούμενος. Compare the readings in I Thess. i. 2, where ὑμῶν is om. by 
δ ΔΒ: 


17. tva. If this passage were to be considered without 
reference to the parallel in Col. i. 9, the rendering “in order 
that” would be tenable (though it would be strange to say, “I 
mention you in order that”). But in Col. the preceding verb is 
αἰτούμενοι. A verb of asking must be followed by words express- 
ing the content of the request. And there is an abundance of 
examples to show that in this and similar cases ἵνα has almost or 
rather entirely lost its final sense. Thus we have δεῖσθαι iva in 
Dion. Hal. εἰπὲ ἵνα, κελεύειν, ἐπιτρέπειν ἵνα. 

Also with θέλειν, eg. Matt. vil. 12, ὅσα ἂν θέλητε ἵνα 
ποιῶσιν: Mark vi. 25, Θέλω Wa μοι dds τὴν κεφαλήν ᾿Ιωάννου : 
ix. 30, οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνῷ: X. 37, δὸς ἡμῖν ἵνα: Matt. x. 25, 
ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ ἵνα γένηται : XVill. 6, συμφέρει αὐτῷ ἵνα κρεμασθῇ : 
cf. ἔδει ἵνα ἐπὶ ξύλου πάθῃ, Barn. 22. ν. 13: ἐλάχιστόν μοι 
ἐστιν ἵνα, τ Cor. iv. 3: ἔστιν συνηθεία iva... ἀπολύσω, John 
XViil. 39 : piaOos tva, 1 Cor, ix. 18. 

In modern Greek va is used as a sign of the infinitive = “to.” 
Winer quotes from the Confessio Orthod. πρέπει νᾶ, λέγεται νά, 
The usage above illustrated indicates the transition to this 
complete weakening of the original force of the word. 

ὃ Θεὸς τοῦ Κυρίου, κ.τ.λ. Many of the early commentators in 
order to avoid the obvious sense of these words, of which the 


1 17 THANKSGIVING AND PRAYER 27 


Arians made use against the Divinity of Christ, interpreted δόξα 
as signifying the Divine nature, κύριος the human. Thus 
Theodoret, Θεὸν μὲν ὡς ἀνθρώπου, πατέρα δὲ ὡς Θεοῦ, δόξαν yap 
τὴν θεΐαν φύσιν ὠνόμασεν. Similarly Athanasius, δόξαν τὸν 
μονογενῆ καλεῖ. But this would surely require αὐτοῦ to be added, 
and the distinction would be out of place in this context. The 
apostle refers to the relation of God to the Lord Jesus Christ as 
an encouragement to hope for the fulfilment of his prayer. More 
inadmissible, and only worthy of note as a singularity of interpreta- 
tion, is the view of Menochius, who takes τοῦ x. 7. Ἰ. X. as a 
parenthesis, or that of Estius, ‘Deus, qui est Domini nostri 
Jesu Christi pater gloriosus.” ‘These devices are unnecessary, 
since the Lord Himself calls God ‘My God,” John xx. 17; 
Matt. xxvil. 46. The expression is neither more nor less express- 
ive of subordination than this, ‘the Father is greater than I,” 
which, as Pearson shows, was understood by the Fathers as spoken 
of the Divine nature of Christ. They did not hesitate to call the 
Father the Source, Fountain, Author, etc., of the Son or the whole 
Divinity. 

ὃ πατὴρ τῆς δόξης. ‘The Father to whom belongs glory,” 
Ch Acie vit ve the God of βίον, 1 Οὐχ ἢ ὃ: “the Lord of 
glory,” cf. Jas. 11. 1; and πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν, 2 Cor. i. 3; also 
χερουβὶμ δόξης, Heb. ix. 5. 

The interpretation “author or source of glory,” if it were 
tenable, would give a good sense. So Chrys. 6 μεγάλα ἡμῖν 
δεδωκὼς ἀγαθά. 

But the possibility of the interpretation is not proved. Poetical 
expressions, such as Pindar’s ἀοιδᾶν πατήρ (of Orpheus, which, 
moreover, is not= “creator,” but “inventor”), are not to the 
point, nor “hath the rain a father”? in Job xxxviil. 28; cf. xvii. 
14. “Father of spirits,” Heb. xii. 9, proves nothing, for the term 
there is introduced only as an antithesis to ‘fathers of our flesh,” 
and besides with the word “spirits,” “father” preserves the double 
notion of “creator” and “ruler,” as indeed the context there 
implies. The nearest parallel is Jas. 1. 17, πατὴρ τῶν φώτων, where 
“the lights” are personified, and the notion of control is not 
absent. But there is no parallel to this in St. Paul, whose usage 
is shown by the passages above referred to. Alford’s view is that as 
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, God is the Father of the 
glory of the Godhead which shone forth in the manhood of the Son. 

δῴη by Lachm. pointed δώῃ as an Ionic conjunctive. The sense points 
to a conjunctive, but the form appears to be known only as epic. WH. 
give it in the margin, but in the text adopt δῴη, a later form for the 
opt. δοίη. B has 6w, to which WH. give the second place in the margin. 
If the ἵνα were truly final, the optative would create a difficulty, being pro- 


perly used after the present, when the attainment of the object is doubtful 
(Rost and Palm). 


28 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [I. 18 


πνεῦμα σοφίας, κιτιλ. According to Eadie, Ellicott, Meyer, 
definitely the Holy Spirit, characterised here suitably to the subject. 
On the absence of the article cf. Gal. v. 5, 16. But these instances, 
where πν. is used as a proper name without a genitive following, are 
not parallel. 

It is better to understand with RV. after Chrys. Theodoret, 
al., ‘‘a spirit of wisdom,” etc.; cf. 2 Tim. 1. 7, “God did not give 
you mv. δειλίας, ἀλλὰ δυνάμεως Kal ἀγάπης καὶ σωφρονισμοῦ " ; Rom. 
Vill. 15, mv. δουλείας : Gal. vi. 1, mv. πρᾳότητος ; Rom. ΧΙ. 8, πν. 
κατανύξεως (Sept.). ‘That the spirit of wisdom here is the effect of 
the Holy Spirit, is naturally understood but not expressed. 

σοφία appears to be the more general term, ἀποκάλυψις having 
reference specially to the ‘“‘mysteries” revealed to believers, not to 
the gift of prophecy, to which there is no reference in what follows, 
and to which the apostle did not attach so much importance (see 
1 Cor, xiii, xiv.). Harless, followed in substance by Eadie, re- 
gards ἀποκ. as the medium by which σοφία is communicated. 
This relation would be more naturally expressed by ἀποκάλυψεως 
καὶ σοφίας. 

ἐν ἐπιγνώσει αὐτοῦ, 2.6. of God, as appears from αὐτοῦ in vv. 18, 10, 
Christ being first referred to in ver. 20. ἐπίγνωσις, “full know- 
ledge,” ‘“‘major exactiorque cognitio,” Grot.; see 1 Cor. ἘΠ 12, 
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην. 
This is generally joined with the preceding, some taking ἐν for 
eis (ἃ Lapide, Bengel, 27), or as = “by,” which reverses the 
relation of the knowledge of God with the gift of σοφία. Meyer 
and Ellicott understand it as marking the sphere or element in 
which they were to receive wisdom and revelation; Stier and 
Eadie, connecting the words especially with azox., suppose them, 
while formally denoting the sphere, to indicate virtually the 
material of the revelation. If this punctuation be adopted, the 
latter view seems preferable. But all difficulty disappears if, with 
Lachm. WH. (after Chrysostom and Theoph.), we connect the 
words with what follows. The abruptness of πεφωτισμένους is 
much softened by the previous mention of the means. Indeed, 
the bold figure of enlightenment of the eyes of the heart seems 
to require some such definition as ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, which then 
naturally precedes, because of its connexion in sense with ἀποκά- 
λυψις. 

18. πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, κιτιλ. A difficult construc- 
tion. The most probable explanation appears to be that the 
words are in apposition with πνεῦμα as the immediate effect, and 
so dependent on δῴη, in which case, however, according to the 
sound observation of Bengel, ‘‘articulus praesupponit oculos jam 
praesentes,” we must render “the eyes of your heart enlightened,” 
πεφ. being a tertiary predicate (so Harless, Olsh. Wold. Schmidt, 


Ι. 18] THANKSGIVING AND PRAYER 29 


Soden). It is also possible to regard zed. as by anacoluthon 
referring to ὑμῖν, τοὺς ὀφθ. being the accusative of nearer definition. 
Somewhat similar examples of the accusative being used where 
the dative has preceded, and might be expected to be repeated, 
are found in classical writers, ¢g. ὕπεστί μοι θράσος ἁδυπνόων 
κλύουσαν ἀρτίως ὀνειράτων, Soph. £7. 479. The sense would be 
‘enlightened as to the eyes of your heart,” ze. “so that ye 
may be enlightened.” Such an irregularity of construction is 
intelligible where it makes the sentence run more simply, not 
where it makes it obscure. 

A third construction is adopted by Bengel, Eadie, @/., accord- 
ing to whom the zed. agrees with 6¢6., the three words together 
being an accus. absolute, “the eyes, etc., being enlightened.” 
That is, the words are taken as equivalent to πεφωτισμένων τῶν 
ὀφθαλμῶν. The possibility of this is questionable. Bernhardy 
(p. 133) maintains that absolute accusatives of participles should 
be banished from Greek grammars (cf. Jelf, § 581. 1). Acts 
XXVi. 3, cited by Lengel, is not in point, being a case of anacolu- 
thon (Winer). 


καρδίας. This reading rests on decisive authority. It is that of δὲ 
ABDGKLP, Vulg. Syr., Orig. Chrys. etc. The T.R. διανοίας is sup- 
ported only by a few cursives, Theodoret and Oecum. 


ὀφθαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας, “eyes of the heart”; cf. Plato, Rep. 
Ρ. 533 A, τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμα. Aristotle in Lh. Lic. calls δεινότης, 
TO ὄμμα τῆς ψυχῆς (Vi. 12. 10). Clement’s ἠνεῴχθησαν ἡμῶν οἱ 
ὀφθ. τῆς καρδίας may be an allusion to this passage. It is to be 
observed that καρδία, with the ancients, was not only the seat of 
emotion, but of thought and moral perception. Here clearly it is 
as the seat of knowledge that it is referred to, hence “eyes of 
the heart.” See the contrary state, the darkening of the heart, 
ROM. 21. 

τίς ἐστιν ἣ ἐλπίς. Not “of what nature,” nor “quanta,” but 
simply ‘‘quae,” which includes “ qualis, quanta et quam certa.” 
ἐλπὶς τῆς KA., the hope which belongs to or is implied in our calling, 
7.6. not merely the subjective emotion produced by our calling 
(taking τῆς KA. as gen. of efficient cause, Meyer, Ell.), the know- 
ledge of which does not require a special grace, but certainly 
including the content of this hope, not the object in itself, but as 
a conception (compare the use of our word “ambition,” “what is 
his ambition?” ze. the object of it as a mental conception). 
From the nature of the case the certainty is assumed. Compare 
Col. i. 5, “the hope laid up for you in the heavens (= Tit. ii. 13), 
Heb. vi. 18, προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα. The κλῆσις gives 
the guarantee for this, and includes it; it is, in fact, to this hope 
that believers are called ; ἐπὶ ποίαις ἐλπίσι κεκλήμεθα, Theodoret. 


30 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [-: 19 


τίς 6 πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης τῆς κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ. Not to be 
weakened into “rich glory” or ‘glorious inheritance.” ‘What ἃ 
full grandiose cumulation, picturing, as it were, the weightiness of 
the matter!” Meyer. Glory is the essential attribute of the 
inheritance to be received, and the apostle wishes the readers to 
know how great the rich fulness of this glory is; cf. Col. 1. 27, 
“riches of the glory of this mystery.” 

ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις. ‘Among the saints.” This is by most com- 
mentators connected with κληρονομία, a connexion which is 
naturally suggested by Acts xx. 32, δοῦναι κληρονομίαν ἐν τοῖς 
ἡγιασμένοις πᾶσιν: οἵ. 7b. xxvi. 18, κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις. It 
is a serious if not fatal objection to this that it would require the 
article τήν to be repeated before ἐν τ. ay., not simply because 
αὐτοῦ comes between, but because 1) κληρονομία Θεοῦ is completely 
defined by this αὐτοῦ. In fact, with this connexion the words 
would mean, “the inheritance which God has in the saints,” which 
is actually the meaning adopted by Stier, conjoining ἐκληρώθημεν, 
ver. 11, which he interprets, ‘‘ were made an inheritance.” This, 
however, would be out of harmony with the use of the word 
ΠΡ ὑπ INS (οἱ: ver. 145 vehi veg 5 Acts ee, _above), as 
well as with the context. Such phrases as τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ 
σάρκα (where o. is an adj., Rom. ix. 3)3 TOV Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ, σάρκα, 
1 Cor. x. 18; τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, Eph. 11. 11; τὸν ὑμῶν ζῆλον ὑπὲρ 
ἐμοῦ, 2 Cor. vil. 7, are not analogous. 

The construction then is, “ What the riches of the glory of His 
inheritance is among the saints.” ‘The community of believers 15 
the sphere in which alone this πλοῦτος, «.7.A., is found. This 
does not require the repetition of ὁ before ἐν τ. ay., nor does it 
give too great emphasis to the latter words. ‘The object of the 
κληρονομία is, of course, the future kingdom of God; but this 
future glory is treated by St. Paul as if present. 

19. καὶ τί τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος, κιτιλ. Supply, as in the 
previous clause, ἐστί, to which then we are to attach εἰς ἡμᾶς, not 
δυνάμεως, “And what the exceeding greatness of His power is to 
usward.” Thus the two clauses are symmetrical, eis ἡμᾶς corre- 
sponding in position to ἐν rots ἁγίοις. 

The three objects of εἰδέναι are in reality one and the same 
under different points of view; the content of the “hope of the 
calling” is the inheritance of Heb. ix. 15, and this again in its 
realisation is an effect and proof of the δύναμες of God. Thus the 
object of the ἐπίγνωσις is the blessing to be obtained in the future 
kingdom of God. 

κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, κιτλ. Many commentators connect these 
words with τοὺς πιστ., understanding them as expressing the fact 
that faith itself is the result of God’s ἐνέργεια. But this would 
make the whole solemn exposition in ver. 20 subservient to mor., 


as ΡΒ 


I. 20, 21] SUPREMACY OF CHRIST 31 


which is only incidental in the sentence. The connexion would 
be interrupted by a reference to the origin of faith. Besides, this 
would require us to give to κατά some such meaning as “by virtue 
of,” since our faith is not according to the measure of His power. 
The three objects of εἰδέναι are so closely connected in themselves 
that it matters little whether we refer the words κατὰ τ. € to the 
last only or to all three; naturally, however, the ἐνέργεια is 
immediately connected with the last. This ἐν. supplies the 
measure by which to estimate the power of God. 

As to the three words ἰσχύς, κράτος, ἐνέργεια, the distinction 
appears to be that ἰσχύς is inherent power, κράτος power expressing 
itself in overcoming resistance, and ἐνέργεια the actual exercise of 
power. The Vulgate has ‘secundum operationem potentiae 
virtutis ejus.” Each term has here its appropriate meaning, and 
there is no occasion to have recourse to a Hebraism, or to such a 
resolution as κράτος ἰσχυρόν. 

20-23. This power of God was shown in His raising Christ 
Jrom the dead, and setting Him above all created powers by what- 
ever name they may be called, whether on earth or in heaven. Huis 
relation to the Church, however, 1s more intimate. Jt is the Body 
of which He ts the Head. 

20. ἣν ἐνήργησεν or ἐνήργηκεν. The latter is read by AB, Cyr., the 
former by ἃ DGK LP. The versions naturally do not help. Lachm. Tisch. 
WH. adopt the perfect, WH. placing the aorist in the margin. Tregelles 
puts the perfect in the margin. The neighbouring aorist might readily lead 
to the substitution of the aorist for the perfect. The counter change would 
not be so easily accounted for. The perfect is properly employed, because 


the effect continues while the separate acts in which this ἐνεργεῖν realised 
itself follow in aorists. 


ἐγείρας. The time is contemporaneous with that of the 
principal verb; not “having raised him”; but as AV. “when 
He raised him”; or “in that He raised Him.” 


21. καὶ καθίσας. This is the reading of δὲ AB, Vulg. The Rec. καὶ 
ἐκάθισεν is found in DGK LP, Chrys. etc.; αὐτόν is added in δὲ A, Boh. Syr. 
(both), but not in BDGKLP, Vulg. Tischendorf, who reads καὶ καθίσας 
αὐτόν with δὲ A, thinks a difficulty was found in this reading for two reasons, 
first, that although the verb occurs frequently in the N.T. it is transitive only 
in I Cor. vi. 4 (compare συνεκάθισεν, Eph. ii. 6) ; and, secondly, because 
nowhere else is God said to have placed Christ at His right hand, but Christ 
is said to have sat down at God’s right hand. 

Those who adopt the reading ἐκάθισεν think that more emphasis is thereby 
given to éyelpas as the principal illustration of the Divine power. The words 
seem to be an indirect quotation of Ps. cx. 1. Compare Ps. xvi. 11, and the 
request of the sons of Zebedee, Mark x. 37 ; and for the ground of the figure, 
I Sam. xx. 25; I Kingsii. 19. Harless quotes from Pindar (of Minerva), 
δεξιὰν κατὰ χεῖρα πατρὸς ἵζεαι (Hrvagm. xi. 9). The words express participa- 
tion in the highest honour and power. So Stephen beholds Jesus standing 
ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Acts vii. 56. 


ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις has, of course, primarily a local signification. 


32 THE HPISTLE ΤῸ THE EPHESIANS [I. 21 


But so also have καθίσας and δεξιά, It is said that these ‘‘ distinctly 
local expressions” “tend to invalidate the vague and idealistic 
‘status coelestis’ urged by Harless” (Ellicott). But these expres- 
sions tell rather the other way. For surely no one will interpret 
the right hand of God locally, or the “sitting.” These words are 
but figurative expressions of honour and dignity. Some writers, 
indeed, lay stress on Stephen’s beholding of Jesus at the right 
hand of God. ‘As Stephen saw Him, so He veritably is,” says 
Alford ; and Stier holds fast the “‘ cevtum ποῦ of heaven, yea of the 
throne of God in it.” With so literal a view as this τὰ ἐπουράνια can 
be nothing but extra-terrestrial space, or more properly (considering 
the earth’s motion), space in general. ‘The distressed mind 
instinctively looks upward (says Eadie) to the throne of God.” 
And Stier calls a similar observation of Passavant decisive. 
(How about the Antipodes, or ourselves at a later hour?) We 
look upward in order to look away from visible things. 


B reads ἐν rots οὐρανοῖς, which is adopted by Lachmann. 


21. ὑπεράνω, “over above,” is not intensive, ἵνα τὸ ἀκρότατον 
ὕψος δηλώσῃ, “far above,” AV. See Heb. ix. 5, ὑπεράνω αὐτῆς 
xepouBiw ; Ezek. xliii. 15, tx. τῶν κεράτων πῆχυς ; also 7, vill. 2, 
Χ τὸ: 

Compare also ὑποκάτω, Mark vi. 11, ὗ. τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν, and Heb. 
ii. 8. There was a tendency to such compounds in later Greek. 

πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος. These 
words cannot be considered apart from the parallel enumeration 
in Col. i. 16, τὰ πάντα ἐν Tots οὐρανοῖς Kal ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ 
τὰ ἀόρατα εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι. In Col. 
the abstracts are obviously used for the concrete; it does not, 
however, follow that the same is the case here where the nouns 
are singular. There St. Paul is contending definitely against the 
doctrine of angelic mediators; here he is only alluding to it. 
Vitringa takes the words here as abstract, understanding them as 
titles which belonged to the Messiah. In either case there is 
probably a reference to the use of the words as names of classes 
of angelic powers. ‘The view that limits the meaning of the words 
to earthly powers may be set aside, as this would have little point 
in connexion with such a lofty expression of Christ’s exaltation. 
3ut the questions remain, Are the powers referred to only 
heavenly, or both earthly and heavenly? Are these heavenly 
powers good or bad, or both? and what conclusion, if any, can we 
draw as to the ranks and subordination of the angels? It will be 
convenient to answer the last question first, which we do without 
hesitation in the words of Lightfoot (on Col.), “In this catalogue 
St. Paul does not profess to describe objective realities, but 
contents himself with repeating subjective opinions.” First, neither 


I. 21] SUPREMACY OF CHRIST 33 


here nor elsewhere does he make any positive statement about 
the orders of angelic powers. To do so here would be, not to 
assist, but to interrupt his exposition of the doctrine of Christ’s 
exaltation. Nor, indeed, is it likely that here and in Col., writing 
to those who were in danger of giving too much prominence to 
angelology, and priding themselves on their knowledge of the 
unseen (Col. ii. 18), St. Paul should enlighten them by “an 
incidental revelation” (Ellicott), which could have no effect but 
to assist them in their futile speculations. The very manner in 
which he expresses himself here, καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου, 
k.T.A., indicates the contrary. As Lightfoot well remarks, ‘‘ He 
brushes away all these speculations without inquiring how much 
or how little truth there may be in them, because they are 
altogether beside the question.” It is as if he said, “It matters not 
by what title they are called, or whether real or imaginary, Christ 
is elevated above them all.” The «ire . . . εἴτε in Col. gives a 
similar indication. He is impatient with this elaborate angelology. 


No doubt St. Paul took these names from the speculations to which he 
refers in Col. ii. 18, with which the Asiatic readers of this Epistle also were 
familiar. This is not mere conjecture. In the Zestaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs, an early Jewish-Christian work (probably before A.D. 131), seven 
orders of spirits are named, the two highest, which are in the seventh heaven, 
being called θρόνοι and ἐξουσίαι. The others are described by their offices 
(Levi 3). Origen enumerates five classes, called in the Latin in an ascend- 
ing series, ‘‘sancti angeli, principatus (- ἀρχαί), potentates (= ἐξουσίαι), sedes 
or throni (-: θρόνοι), dominationes (=«xvpiérytes),” Opp. 1733, pp. 66, 70. 
But this cannot be regarded as independent of St. Paul. Ephrem Syrus, 
commenting on Deut. i. 15, gives three great divisions, subdivided thus: 
(1) θεοί, θρόνοι, κυριότητες ; (2) ἀρχάγγελοι, ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι ; (3) ἄγγελοι, 
δυνάμεις, χερουβίμ, σεραφίμ (Opp. Syr. i. p. 270). (Compare Milton’s 
‘thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers.”’) 

The treatise of the pseudo- Dionysius ‘‘on the Celestial Hierarchy,” 
written about A.D. 500, and very popular in the Middle Ages, gives three 
classes each with three subdivisions, viz.: (1) θρόνοι, χερουβίμ, cepadly ; 
(2) ἐξουσίαι, κυριότητες, δυνάμεις ; (3) ἄγγελοι, ἀρχάγγελοι, ἀρχαί. Perhaps 
too much importance has been attached in this connexion to these quotations 
by some expositors, as if it might be assumed that they were derived from 
independent sources. Origen seems wholly dependent on St. Paul, saying 
that he does not know whence the apostle took the names. 

It follows from what has been said that it is to no purpose to inquire 
whether the names are arranged in ascending or descending order, especially 
as the order in Colossians is not the same as in Ephesians, nor the reverse ; 
whence Alford supposes that here the first two descend, the next two ascend. 
More wisely Chrysostom calls the names ἄσημα καὶ οὐ γνωριζόμενα, and 
Augustine, ‘‘dicant, qui possunt, si tamen possunt probare quod dicunt ; ego 
me ista ignorare fateor.” 

The universality of expression both here and in Colossians, where the 
enumeration is preceded by the words ‘‘in heaven and on earth, visible and 
invisible,” leads us to infer that earthly powers as well as heavenly are 
included. The terms ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι are used of earthly powers in Tit. iii. 1, 
and in this Epistle in vi. 12 of evil powers. κυριότης occurs in 2 Pet. ii. 10; 
Jude 8. Compare the Book of Enoch Ixi. 10, ‘‘angels of power and angels 
of principality ” (ed. Charles, p. 46). 

3 


34 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [I. 22, 23 


καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος, k.t.A. καί here = and in general, cf. Demosth. 
De Contrib. xxxi. 4, καὶ τιμῆς Kat ἀρχῆς καὶ ἀγαθοῦ τινος μεταλαμ- 
βάνειν, and Aeschin. adv. Tim. Ἢ Σόλων ἐκεῖνος, ὃ παλαιὸς νομοθέτης 
καὶ ὁ Δράκων καὶ οἱ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους ἐκείνους νομοθέται (Fritzsche, 
Matth. pp. 786, 870). ὄνομα ὀνομαζόμενον is understood by many 
(including Lightfoot) to mean “ every dignity \ or title (whether real 
or imaginary) which is reverenced.” But ὄνομα never of itself 
contains the idea of dignity; in such phrases as “the name of 
God,” it is because of the word with which it is joined that it 
acquires this sense ; 50 again in such phrases as ποιεῖν ὄν.) ἔχειν Ov., 
ἐν ὀνόματι εἶναι, the idea of dignity does not reside in the word 
ὄνομα any more than in our word ΄ ‘name,” which is similarly used 
when we say “‘to make a name,” etc. ‘The participle ὀνομαζομένου 
also shows that the word is to be taken in its simple meaning. 
Nor is it “every such name,” which is quite arbitrary. 

οὐ μόνον, κιτιλ. Chrysostom and Theodoret suppose these words 
to refer to our possible knowledge in the future life ; but it is not our 
knowledge that is in question, but the exaltation of Christ, which is 
thus declared to be, not temporary, but eternal. The form of ex- 
pression is common in Jewish writers, who, however, by “the world 
to come” understand the time of the Messiah. Cf. Matt. xii. ao. 

22. Kal πάντα, K.T. X., a reminiscence (not a citation as in 1 Cor. 
xv, 27) Of Ps. vill.'7, where the words are spoken of man. Here 
the apostle adopts them as typically applicable to Christ, in whom 
they received a higher and more complete fulfilment. The context 
in the psalm itself, ‘‘all sheep and oxen,” etc., shows that this is 
not to be regarded as an interpretation of the psalm, but an 
application of its language in a manner familiar with Jewish 
writers. In Christ, humility was raised to a dignity far surpassing 
that which was assigned to it at its first creation. 

καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. The verb 
ἔδωκεν is not for ἔθηκεν, but with its proper sense, “gave,” is 
directly connected with τῇ exkA. The order of the words is not 
against this, for not only is the position of κεφαλὴν ὕ. 7. most 
appropriate to the general sense of the passage, which concerns, 
not the giving, but the giving as Head, but it is also necessary to 
clearness, in order that ἥτις may follow ἐκκλ. directly. κεφαλὴν 
ὑπὲρ πάντα is not=summum caput, as if there were more heads 
than one, but simply ‘‘ Head over all.” 

28. ἥτις =not the simple relative, but ‘‘ which, in fact, is,” “ut 
quae.” In order, says Oecumenius, that hearing of the head you 
may not think merely of rule and authority, σωματικῶς ἡμῶν ἐστι 
κεφαλή. There is an organic connexion; the life of the Church 
springs from its union with Christ as its Head. 

τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου. A much vexed 
passage, which is ably discussed by Soden, to the following effect. 


2) (( 


iG 23] SUPREMACY OF CHRIST 35 


We find in iv. to that it is the function of Christ to fill all things, 
having ascended to heaven and thence descending with the gifts 
communicated to the Church. He is here, therefore, called ὁ 
πληρούμενος τὰ πάντα. 

This He is able to do by virtue of His being the head over 
all. How this is to be understood is suggested by Rom. xili. 9. sq., 
where that by which the law is fulfilled, namely, ἀγάπη, is also 
that in which the law with all its parts ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται. If we 
transfer this to the present passage, it gives the result that the 
fact that τὰ πάντα are filled by Christ coincides with this ; but τὰ 
πάντα ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται in Christ, ch. i. 10. And this expression 
corresponds with the conception that the Church, whose function 
is to be the means of this πληροῦσθαι, is so because Christ is given 
to her as Head. 

If Christ is to fill all things through the medium of the Church, 
He must first fill the Church. And with this the figure of σῶμα 
agrees, since in a man the head fills the body with its thoughts 
and purposes, so that each member is determined by it and filled 
by it, and that the more, the maturer the man is: comp. iv. 
13, 16, where the πλήρωμα τοῦ Xp. is attained in proportion as 
the σῶμα is, so to speak, full grown. In this view πλήρωμα τοῦ 
Xp. is understood to mean that which is filled with Christ, and 
with some modifications this is the view adopted by most moderns. 

The difficulty is in the genitive relation, 7A. τοῦ Xp. The word 
πλήρωμα has been very fully discussed, from a lexical point of 
view, by Fritzsche (fom. vii. p. 469), to whom later com- 
mentators are indebted for their references ; also by Lightfoot in 
an excursus on Col., and by others. The verb πληρόω means 
either to fill or to fulfil, complete. The meanings of the sub- 
stantive have been generally derived from the former signification, 
but it is important to keep the latter in mind. Like all verbals 
in -μα, the substantive has a passive signification. There are, 
indeed, one or two passages cited by Fritzsche and the lexicons 
as examples of an active sense, e.g. Eur. Zroad. 824, Ζηνὸς ἔχεις 
κυλίκων πλήρωμα καλλίσταν λατρείαν, 7:6. filling the cups of Zeus, 
and Philo, de Ady. (il, Ρ. 39), πίστις ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, παρηγόρημα 
βίου, πλήρωμα χρηστῶν ἐλπίδων = bonae spei ad eventum adductio 
(for faith is not the fulfilment of hope). These are not admitted 
by Lightfoot, but they are cited as examples of what would 
be properly called an “active” sense of πλήρωμα. That which is 
usually so called is really passive ; for since the action of the verb 
has an indirect as well as a direct object, the ee may 
mean either, “id quo res impletur 5. impleta est,” “id quod 
completur.” ναῦς πληροῦν is a familiar phrase for “to man 
ships,” and hence τὸ πλήρωμα and τὰ πληρώματα of ships are the 
full complement of their crews or fighters, or both, cf. Xen. 


36 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [I. 23 


Fell, i. 6. 16, ἐκ πολλῶν πληρωμάτων ἐκλελέχθαι τοὺς ἀρίστους 
ἐρέτας. It is also used of the cargo, as by Philo, de vita Mosis 
(ii. 144), who speaks of τὸ πλ. of the ark. Suidas, too, gives 
πληρώματα ὃ τῶν νηῶν φόρτος. ‘The passive force in these cases 
will be more clear if we compare Xen. /e//. vi. 2. 14, where 
Iphicrates τὰς vats ἐπληροῦ. ‘The action was that of Iphicrates, 
but neither he nor his action was πλήρωμα. The word is also 
used of the ship itself, as in Lucian, Ver. Hisz. ii. 37, ἀπὸ δύο 
πληρωμάτων ἐμάχοντο; 38, πέντε yap εἶχον πληρώματα,---ἃ usage 
explained by Fritzsche from the sense “id quod completur,” 
but more simply as a figure of the same kind as that by which 
in naval histories the admiral’s ship is called ‘‘ the admiral.” 

But we want to know the meaning of 7A. with a genitive. 
There appears to be no example of a ship being called 7A. 
ἐπιβατῶν or the like. πλήρωμα τῆς πόλεως Occurs pretty often, of 
the full population of the city, or of a combination of artisans, etc. 
complete enough to form a city (Arist. Po/. iv. 4, p. 1291, ταῦτα 
πάντα, 2.6. all these workmen, γίνεται πλήρωμα τῆς πρώτης πόλεως. 
In the Sept. we have πλ. τῆς γῆς, τῆς θαλάσσης, etc., and in 
Eccles. iv. 6, 7A. δρακός, a handful. In the N.T., still in the same 
sense, Mk. vill. 20, σπυρίδων πληρώματα. The sense “abundance,” 
often found, does not concern us here. The only example quoted 
to justify the interpretation of 7A. with a genitive, as = πεπλήηρω- 
pevov, is from Philo, De Praem. et Poen. (i. Ὁ. 418), “The soul 
by these three excellent things, nature, learning, exercise, γενομένη 
πλήρωμα ἀρετῶν, leaving in itself no empty space for the entry of 
other things.” But the plural ἀρετῶν here prevents our accepting 
the passage as a Satisfactory parallel to πλ. Χριστοῦ (or Θεοῦ). 
The article also forms an objection to this interpretation. Since 
Christ, in the same sentence, is said to fill all things, how can the 
Church be defined as τὸ πλήρωμα, “that which is filled by Him”? 
Moreover, there is on this view no such parallelism between σῶμα 
and 7A. as the supposition would lead us to expect. The idea of 
the head filling the body is too remote from common notions to 
be left to the reader to supply. 

Fritzsche suggests two alternatives, either “‘those who are filled 
by Christ, namely, with blessings,” or taking 7A. = ‘‘ multitudo,” 
“plenum Christi agmen,” the paronomasia in the latter case being 
verbal. Eadie and Ellicott as well as some others do not seem to 
distinguish the two notions ‘filled with” and ‘filled by,” calling 
the Church “the filled-up receptacle of spiritual blessing from 
Him” (Eadie, adopted by Ell.). If this is their view it is irrele- 
vant to quote 7A. ἀρετῶν or, as Fritzsche, πληροῦσθαι Θεοῦ (from 
Pollux). If they understand ‘filled with Christ’s presence or 
life” (as we surely must if this signification of πλ. is adopted), the 
words just quoted are inadequate. 


I. 23] SUPREMACY OF CHRIST 37 


Lightfoot’s view is that “all the divine graces which reside in 
Him are imparted to her; His fulness is communicated to her ; 
and thus she may be said to be His pleroma.” But this thought 
is not suggested by the connexion, and, besides, the interpretation 
makes σῶμα and πλήρωμα convey quite heterogeneous ideas. 

There is, however, another meaning of πλήρωμα which would 
give an excellent sense, and which has been adopted by Chrysostom, 
Oecumenius, Thomas Aquinas, and many others, namely, ‘‘com- 
plement” in the second sense of that word, viz. that which makes 
complete. This appears to be the signification in which the word 
occurs in Matt. ix. 16, Mark ii. 21, where τὸ ἐπίβλημα, the patch 
put on the old garment, is called τὸ πλήρωμα (although Lightfoot 
interprets the word otherwise). ‘This agrees with the use of the 
verb in connexion with χρείαν -- ἴο supply (Thucyd.). The ex- 
pression is then seen to be easy and natural; the Church as the 
body of Christ is the πλήρωμα or complement of Him, its Head. 
“He says πλήρωμα," observes Chrysostom, “just as the head is com- 
pleted by the body, for the body is composed of all the parts and 
has need of each one. See how he brings Him in as needing all. 
For unless we be many, and one a hand, another a foot, and 
another some other part, the whole body is not completed. By 
all then is His body completed. ‘Then the head is completed, 
then the body becomes perfect when we are all joined and united 
together.” To this it is objected that it supposes that Christ without 
the Church would be deficient, since πλήρωμα implies a previous 
ἥττημα. The objection leaves the figure out of account. When 
Christ is called Head, the figure implies that however complete He 
is in Himself, yet as Head He is not complete without His body. 
As Beza well remarks, ‘‘ Such is Christ’s love for the Church, that 
He, as it were, regards Himself as incomplete unless He has the 
Church united to Him as a body” ; to which the apostle then adds, 
Tov Ta πάντα, K.T.A., to express that Christ does not of Himself 
need this complement, but that, on the contrary, all our complete- 
ness is from Him. ‘There is here no inconsistency in thought, 
although a superficial inconsistency in words, in fact an oxymoron. 
Amongst recent expositors this view is adopted by Barry. 

Oltramare ably maintains the signification ‘‘ perfection” for πλήρωμα. τὸ 
πλήρωμά Twos means ‘‘that by which a person or thing is filled,” and hence, 
in speaking of persons, he says it signifies that by which a person is filled, 
perfected. John i. 16, ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἐλάβομεν, 7.6. of that with 
which he is filled,—an allusion to πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας, ver. 14. 
Usually it refers to qualities with which a person is filled, and which render 
him perfect, from πληροῦν, ‘‘to render perfect (things),” as in Phil. ii. 2, 
πληρώσατέ μου τὴν χαράν : Eph. iv. 10, ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ πάντα : 2 Thess. i. 11, 
ἵνα. . . ὁ Θεὸς Muay... πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης. So πληροῦσ- 
θαι, John iii. 29, ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται: xv. ΤΙ, ἵνα. .. ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν 
πληρωθῇ : 2 Cor. x. 6, ὅταν πληρωθῇ ὑμῶν ἡ ὑπακοή : cf. Eph. ili. 19, v. 18; 
Col. i. 9. Hence πεπληρωμένος, ‘‘made complete, perfect,” John xvi. 24, 





38 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [11. 1 


xvii. 13; Phil. i. 11, πεπλ. καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης, ““ perfect as regards the 
fruit,” etc., not as in Rec. καρπῶν, “filled with”; Col. ii. 10, ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ 
πεπληρωμένοι : Apoc. il. 2, οὐ yap εὕρηκά σου τὰ ἔργα πεπληρωμένα, κ.τ.λ. 
Hence πλήρωμα, ““ perfection,” + Eph. iii. 19, ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ Tr, 
τοῦ Θεοῦ : Col. i. 19, πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα : 1]. 9, πᾶν τὸ πλ. τῆς θεότητος : Eph. 
iv. 13, τὸ πλ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Hence Oltramare renders here ‘‘ the perfection 
(objectively, =the perfect work) of Him who makes all perfect.” The 
difficulty in this interpretation is just in the equation ‘*‘ perfection = perfect 
work.” This requires further justification. 

We must decidedly reject the exposition which makes πλήρωμα to be in 
apposition with αὐτόν. This would make ἥτις ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ a useless 
insertion, and worse than useless, as serving only to separate 7A. from ἔδωκεν. 
Moreover, if the words were to mean ‘‘even Him who is,” etc., they should 
come after αὐτόν ; as they stand they could 6nly depend on αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν, 
‘“gave Him to be mX.,” which does not yield a possible sense. 


πληρουμένου, not passive, as Chrys. (see above) and Vulg. 
(adimpletur), which would make τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι a solecism, but 
middle. We might interpret the middle here as= “for Himself,” 
but the instance quoted above from Xen. /e//. vi. 2. 14, shows 
that the middle may be used simply in an active signification. 
The participle refers not to God, as Theodoret suggests, saying τοῦ 
μὲν Χριστοῦ σῶμα, τοῦ δὲ πατρὸς πλήρωμα, but to Christ, as the 
parallelism shows as well as iv. 12, where ἵνα πληρώση τὰ πάντα is 
said of Christ. ἐν πᾶσι “in all” rather than “ with all.” 

II. 1-10. This exhibition of Goad’s power has not stopped there. 
Fle has made us partakers of Christs resurrection and exaltation, 
having given us life when we were dead through our sins. Not for 
any merit of our own, but of His own free grace, for it was when 
we were dead in our sins that He thus loved us. But though our 
salvation was not on account of any works of ours, it was Goa’s 
purpose in His new creation of us that we should walk in the path 
of holiness which He designed. 

1. καὶ ὑμᾶς from its position means “and you, too.” Resumed 
in ver. 5, where first the verb συνεζωοποίησε is expressed. Some 
commentators, indeed, have closely connected this with the pre- 
ceding verse, so as to make ὑμᾶς depend on πληρουμένου But 
the relation between νεκρούς and συνεζ. is decisive against this. 
Lachmann, while taking ὑμᾶς to be dependent on συνεζ., puts only 
a comma after i. 23, so as to co-ordinate καὶ (συνεζ.) ὑμᾶς with 
αὐτὸν ἔδωκε. But in this case we should certainly expect ἡμᾶς 
here, since the apostle would be passing from what God has done 
with respect to Christ, to what He has done to Christians ; ef. 
1. 19, els ἡμᾶς τοὺς meot. Moreover, 1. 23 has the character of a 
solemn close, not of a parenthetical insertion ; while the exposi- 
tion which begins in 11. 1 is too important to be regarded as a 


᾿ Compare Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. i. 7. 9, ἤτοι ἐνέλειπεν εἰς εὐδαιμονίαν ἢ 
ἐπεπλήρωτο € ἐν μακαριότητι, “either he lacked something for happiness, or he was 
complete in happiness.” 


11. 1] JEWS AND GENTILES DEAD IN SIN 39 


mere appendage to the foregoing. Hence, also, it is not a mere 
exemplification of the general act of grace referred to in 1. 23. 
Rather are we to understand that the apostle, having spoken of 
the exceeding power of God towards those that believe, which 
might be recognised by reflection on what He had done in raising 
and exalting Christ, now, applying this to his readers, reminds 
them that in them also God had shown that exceeding power 
(Meyer). The grammatical structure is interrupted before the 
subject or the verb is expressed. It is taken up again with δέ in - 
ver. 4, where the subject is expressed, and in ver. 5 the object is 
repeated, which, however, is now changed to the first person in 
consequence of the καὶ ἡμεῖς introduced in ver. 3. 

ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ Tats ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν. ὑμῶν 
is added with καὶ ΒῚ) 6, ὅγε. (both) Vulg., Theodoret, etc. It is 
omitted by K L, most cursives, Chrys. Oec. A has ἑαυτῶν ὄντας v., 
“dead as ye were through your trespasses and sins.” Many 
attempts have been made to distinguish between ἁμαρτίαι and 
παραπτώματα. ‘Tittmann, following Augustine's distinction (ad Lev. 
qu. 20), supposes the former to be deliberate sins, the latter sins 
of thoughtlessness. Augustine himself in the same place suggests 
a different view, viz. that 7. meant “‘desertio boni,” and ἅμ. “ per- 
petratio mali.” He seems then to have been guessing. Certainly 
these distinctions are both untenable. Jerome takes παρ. to refer 
to the beginnings of sin in thought, ἅμ. to the actual deeds, which 
is not admissible. Many understand dy., which is the more 
general term, as meant to include the sinful disposition, παρ. being 
only concrete acts. However reasonable this may be with the 
singular ἁμαρτία, it can hardly be maintained of the plural. Ety- 
mology gives no help, for παραπίπτω means to fall or go aside from, 
to miss, e.g. τῆς ὁδοῦ, Polyb. ill. 54. 5; τῆς ἀληθείας, 7. xii. ἡ. 2, 
also without a genitive, to err. So that etymologically παρ. is the 
same as ἁμαρτία. St. Paul appears to use the words as synonymous, 
see Rom. v. 20, ἵνα πλεονάσῃ TO παράπτωμα; ov δὲ ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ 
ἁμαρτία, x.t.’. Comp. also Rom. iv. 25 with 1 Cor. xv. 3. 

Nekpous is here taken by Meyer to mean liable to eternal death. 
That vexpot may be used proleptically appears from Rom. viii. ro. 
In that case the dative is instrumental. But this is hard to re- 
concile with the tense of συνεζωοποίησες. And surely it is very 
improbable that the apostle in speaking of the working of God’s 
power towards them, would mention only their future deliverance 
from death, and not their actual deliverance from spiritual death. 
Nor could the readers fail to think of spiritual death. This sense 
is sufficiently indicated by τοῖς παρ. x.7.A., as well as by the follow- 
ing verse. So Chrysostom, εἰς ἔσχατον κακίας ἠλάσατε (τοῦτο yap 
ἐστι νεκρωθῆναι). ‘This figure of spiritual (or moral) death is fre- 
quent amongst the ancients. Clement of Alexand.ia says that ἐν 


40 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS (as 


TH βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίᾳ νεκροὺς καλοῦσι τοὺς ἐκπεσόντας TOV δογμάτων 
καὶ καθυποτάξαντας τὸν νοῦν τοῖς πάθεσι τοῖς ψυχικοῖς. The Jewish 
Rabbis have similar expressions. But Christianity has given a 
much deeper meaning to “death” in this connexion. We have 
the same phrase in Col. ii. 13, where ἐν is not part of the genuine 
text, and τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν is against the mere in- 
strumental sense of the dative. It expresses that in which the 
death consisted. 

2. év ais refers to both substantives, though agreeing in gender 
with the nearer. περιπατεῖν in this sense is a Hebraism. ‘The 
figure has disappeared, so that we are not to press the preposition 
as if marking ‘the walk which they trod”; see Rom. xii. 13, 
περιπατήσωμεν, μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, κιτ.λ., and the parallel use of 
πορεύεσθαι, Acts 1X. 31, π. τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου. It is of frequent 
occurrence in St. Paul and St. John, but is not found in St. James 
or St. Peter, who use ἀναστρέφεσθαι (a classical word, though not 
before Polybius) ; cf. 1 Pet. 1. 17. 

κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτους “In accordance with the 
course of this world.” This combination of αἰών and κόσμος creates 
some difficulty. Elsewhere we have ὁ αἰὼν otros (1 Cor. i. 20, 
_ ii. 6, ili. 18, etc.), or 6 κόσμος οὗτος, τ Cor. lil. 19. ἢ σοφία τοῦ κ. 
τούτου in the latter passage being synonymous with 7 σοφία τοῦ ai. 
τούτου in 1 Cor. ii. 6. But the two substantives are not syn- 
onymous ; αἰών means a period of time ; κόσμος, the world existing 
in that period. ‘Thus Antoninus (ii. 12) says that all things 
quickly vanish, τῷ μὲν κόσμῳ αὐτὰ τὰ σώματα, τῷ δὲ αἰῶνι αἱ μνῆμαι 
αὐτῶν. The signification “life,” frequent in classical Greek, especi- 
ally in the tragic poets, is never found in the N.T. As a para- 
phrase, however, “spirit of the age” fairly represents the sense, 
except that “age” refers to the whole period of this κόσμος. 
Comp. Tacitus, “‘corrumpere et corrumpi saeculum vocatur” (Germ. 
i. 9). αἰών being a technical word with the Gnostics, it was to be 
expected that some expositors would adopt a similar meaning here. 
Accordingly, this has been done by Michaelis, who supposes the 
words αἰὼν τοῦ x. τ. to mean “the devil,” with a polemic reference 
to the Gnostic aeons; and by Baur, who regards the expression 
itself as Gnostic, and equivalent to κοσμοκράτωρ, Vi. 12, meaning 
“the devil.” Holtzmann regards it as representing a transition 
stage between Paulinism and Gnosticism. As the ordinary signifi- 
cation of αἰών yields a perfectly good and Pauline sense, there is 
no ground for such hypotheses. If the devil were intended to be 
designated here as ruler of this world, we might expect some such 
expression as 6 θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦτου, as in 2 Cor. iv. 4. 

κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας Tod ἀέρος. Most expositors take 
ἐξ. here collectively =ai ἐξουσίαι, understanding τοῦ ἀέρος as ex- 
pressing the sphere of their existence. Such words as συμμαχία 





II. 2] JEWS AND GENTILES DEAD IN SIN 41 


for σύμμαχοι, δουλεία for δοῦλοι, πρεσβεία for πρέσβεις, etc., ex- 
emplify this collective use of abstract for concrete terms. So 
occasionally in English, as “‘ embassy,” “ flight ” (of arrows). The 
present case, however, is not quite parallel, since the distribution 
for which ἐξ. is supposed to stand is the plural of this word itself, 
viz. ai ἐξουσίαι. This implies that the singular might be used of 
one of the ἐξουσίαι ; cf. Rom. xiil. 2, 3, where, however, ἡ ἐξ. does 
not mean a ruling person. To use it collectively for ai ἐξ. is, 
therefore, very different from using 7 συμμαχία for of σύμμαχοι. 
Besides, we must not assume that the word can be treated apart 
from the following genitive. 6 ἄρχων is defined, not by τῆς éé., but 
by τῆς ἐξ. tod ἀέρος. For this reason, too, we cannot take τ. é. as 
a genitive of apposition=“‘princeps potentissimus.” Now, the 
genitive following ἐξουσία is elsewhere either subjective, as 7 ἐξ. 
tov σατανᾶ, Acts xxvi. 18; τοῦ ἡγεμόνος, Lk. xx. 20; ὑμῶν, 1 Cor. 
vill. 9 ; or objective, πάσης σαρκός, John xvil. 2; πνευμάτων, Matt. 
X. I; ὑμῶν 1 Cor. ix. 12. It is possible, therefore, to understand 
the words as meaning “ the ruler to whom belongs the power over 
the region of the air”; but this would create a difficulty in con- 
nexion with πνεύματος. It is therefore perhaps best to take 
ἢ ἐξ. τοῦ a, as the power whose seat is in the air. Some com- 
mentators take ἀήρ here as=cxoros; and if this were possible we 
should have obvious parallels in vi. 12, κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους 
τοῦτου, and Col. i. 13, τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους. But although ἀήρ 
is used in Homer and elsewhere of ‘thick air” in contrast to 
αἰθήρ, as in Plutarch (of the first creation), ἔτι μὲν οὐρανὸν ἔκρυπτεν 
ἀήρ (De esu carn. Or. 1. ὃ. 2), it does not appear that it can be used 
simply for σκότος, nor again that if so used figuratively, it could 
by another figure be used of spiritual darkness. What, then, does 
the expression mean? Oecumenius’ view is that as the rule of 
Satan is under heaven, not above, it must be either in the earth or 
the air; but, being a spirit, it must be in the air, φύσις yap τοῖς 
πνεύμασιν ἡ ἐναέριος διατριβή ; and this is adopted by Harless and 
others. The air being understood to mean, not merely the region 
of the atmosphere, but “all that supra-terrestrial, but sub-celestial, 
region, which seems to be, if not the abode, yet the haunt of evil 
spirits,” Ellicott, who compares Job 1. 7 LXX, ἐμπεριπάτησαν τὴν 
ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν, which surely is not to be appealed to as giving any 
light. Eadie ingeniously suggests that “the ἀήρ and κόσμος 
must correspond in relation. As there is an atmosphere round 
the physical globe, so air, ἀήρ, envelops this spiritual xéopos,”—an 
atmosphere “in which it breathes and moves.” Compare our own 
phrases in which “atmosphere” is used figuratively, ‘an atmo- 
sphere of flattery,” etc. But if such a figure were intended, some 
word must be added which would indicate the figure, such as the 
words “breathes and moves” in Eadie’s explanation. Indeed, he 


42 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [II. 2 


admits that it is perhaps too ingenious to be true, and falls back 
on the alternative that either the apostle used current language, 
which did not convey error, as Satan is called Beelzebub, without 
reference to the meaning of the term “ Lord of flies,” or that he 
means to convey the idea of “near propinquity,” or alludes 
to what he had more fully explained during his residence at 
Ephesus. ‘That the notion of the air being the dwelling-place of 
spirits, and specially of evil spirits, was current, appears to be 
beyond doubt. ‘Thus Pythagoras held εἶναι πάντα τὸν ἀέρα ψυχῶν 
ἔμπλεων (Diog. L. vill. 32). Philo says, ovs ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι 
δαίμονας, ἀγγέλους Μωσῆς εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν" ψυχαὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶ κατὰ τὸν 
ἀέρα πετόμεναι. In the Zest, X77. Pa/r. it is said of ὃ δεύτερος 
οὐρανός that it has fire, snow, ice ready for the day of the Lord’s 
command, ἐν αὐτῷ εἰσὶ πάντα τὰ πνεύματα τῶν ἐπαγωγῶν εἰς 
ἐκδίκησιν τῶν ἀνόμων (Levi, ap. Fabric. Cod. Apoc. ΤΟΣ 547)» 
and in Zest. Benj. p. 729, Βελιάρ is called τὸ ἀέριον πνεῦμα. 
Drusius cites from the commentary on Aboth, ‘sciendum, a 
terra usque ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et praefectis et 
infra plurimas esse creaturas credentes et accusantes, omnesque 
stare ac volitare in aere . . . quorum ali ad bonum, alii ad 
malum incitant.” There is no difficulty in supposing that St. 
Paul is here alluding to such current notions. Nor are we to 
suppose that he is conveying any special revelation about the 
matter. Harless’ objection, that according to the views referred 
to, the air was inhabited by good spirits as well as bad, is by no 
means fatal, since it is on the bad spirits that men’s thoughts 
would chiefly dwell, and to them would be referred evil sugges- 
tions and desires. 

τοῦ πνεύματος is understood by some (including Riickert and 
De Wette) as in apposition with τὸν ἄρχοντα. Winer, while 
rejecting this view, admits that in this case the apostle might most 
easily have wandered from the right construction, namely, on 
account of the preceding genitives. It is, however, unnecessary to 
suppose this, although it must be conceded that the only admis- 
sible alternative, viz. that zv. depends on ἄρχοντα, is more harsh 
as to sense, although the harshness is lessened by the distance 
from ἄρχοντα. Adopting this, the sense is, “the ruler of the 
spirit,” etc. Here πνεῦμα is not to be understood collectively, 
which it cannot be; it is what in 1 Cor. il. 12 is called τὸ πνεῦμα 
τοῦ κόσμου, the spiritual influence which works in the (ἸΒΟΠΒΟΙΘΩΙ. 
It seems to be a sort of explanation of the preceding ἐ ἐξουσία. 

νῦν. Not “even now,” which would require καὶ νῦν, but in 
contrast to ποτέ, when this spirit operated in the readers also. 

ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ame Betas. A Hebrew form of expression. We 
have ‘‘son of mise"y,” Prov. xxxi. 5; “sons of iniquity,” 2 Sam. 
vil. 10; ‘‘sons of Belial (=worthlessness).” Compare ch. v. 6; 


11. 8] JEWS AND GENTILES DEAD IN SIN 43 


wore 63 1 Thess: vasa, sons: of light’); 2 Thess. ii: 3 (“son 
of perdition”). Greek authors used the expression παῖδες ζωγράφων 
and the like, but not with abstracts. The opposite to viot ἀπ. is 
τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, I Pet. 1. 14. ἀπείθεια is not unbelief, but disobedi- 
ence; compare Rom. xi. 30, καὶ ὑμεῖς ποτὲ ἠπειθήσατε τῷ Θεῷ. 
Chrysostom very curiously says, épas ὅτι οὐ βίᾳ οὐδὲ τυραννίδι ἀλλὰ 
πειθοῖ προσάγεται; ἀπείθειαν γὰρ εἶπεν, ὡς ἄν τις εἴποι, ἀπάτῃ καὶ 
πειθοῖ τοὺς πάντας ἐφέλκεται. But on Col. iii. 6 he says, δεικνὺς ὅτι 
παρὰ τὸ μὴ πεισθῆναι ἐν τούτοις εἰσιν. ‘The former remark looks 
more like a rhetorical play on words than a serious comment. 

8. ἐν οἷς Kal ἡμεῖς. καὶ ἡμεῖς, “we also, we too.” Having 
spoken specially of the Gentiles in the preceding verses, the 
apostle now passes to the Jews. The πάντες is certainly no objec- 
tion to this. ‘“‘ Even amongst us (the chosen people) there was no 
exception.” What more natural than to say “all of us also.” If 
πάντες included both Jews and Gentiles, ἡμεῖς would be quite 
superfluous ; and the emphatic καὶ ἡμεῖς would be unintelligible if 
it included ὑμεῖς of vv. 1 and 2. ἐν οἷς is connected by Stier with 
παραπτώμασιν (which he thinks appropriate to Jews, as ἁμαρτίαις to 
Gentiles). His reasons are, first, that as viol τῆς ἀπ. are the 
heathen, not all the unbelieving, it would not be suitable to reckon 
the Jews amongst them ; secondly, that the harshness of supposing 
that ἐν just now used with ἐνεργοῦντος is immediately used with the 
same object in a different signification; and thirdly, that the 
parallelism of 2 and 3 compels us to take ev ais and ev ois as 
parallel. With the reading ὑμῶν adopted above in ver. 1 it 15 
impossible thus to separate zap. from ἂμ. It might more plausibly 
be maintained that οἷς refers to both substantives, the feminine 
having been adopted only because ay. was the nearest substantive, 
and the neuter being used where that reason does not exist. But 
we cannot well avoid referring the relative to the nearest ante- 
cedent when that gives a suitable sense, and the change of verb 
from περιπατεῖν to ἀναστρέφεσθαι, which is more suitable if οἷς be 
persons, is in favour of this; ‘amongst whom we also,” belonging 
to the same class of the disobedient. 

ἀνεστράφημεν. ‘ Versabamur,” “lived our life”; ‘speciosius 
quam ambulare,” Bengel, but rather perhaps adopted because 
περιπατεῖν ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς could not be said. 

ἐν Tats ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκός. σάρξ, though primarily signifying 
the matter of the body, and hence the appetites arising from the 
body, is not to be limited to these, but includes the whole of the 
lower or psychical nature. In Rom. vii. it appears in the natural 
man as opposed to νοῦς or ἐγώ in the higher sense; in Rom. viii. 
in the regenerate it is opposed to πνεῦμα. Amongst the works of 
supe are, “strites,” etc, Gali v.19, 22. Compare Col: it. 38; 
“puffed up by the νοῦς of his σάρξ." The ἐπιθυμίαι of the flesh 


44 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS (II. 3 


are therefore not merely the bodily appetites, but in general what 
Butler calls “particular propensions.” So here it includes σάρξ 
proper and διάνοιαι. 

ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα, k.T.A., Expresses the result in act of the 
ἐπιθυμίαι ; there is no tautology. Διάνοιαι is not found elsewhere 
with a bad signification. In classical authors διάνοια means the 
understanding, or a thought or purpose. In Aristotle virtue is 
προαίρεσις μετὰ λόγου καὶ δίανοιας. The plural also is used by 
Plutarch in a good sense. In the N.T. it occurs frequently in a 
good sense, 1 Pet. i. 13, “girding up the loins of your 6.”; 2 Pet. 
iii. 1, “I stir up your pure 6.”; 1 John v. 20, “‘hath given us a 
6.”; cf. also ch. 1. 18. Harless conjectures that the plural here 
is used in the sense common in Greek writers, viz. purpose, the 
plural suggesting vacillation ; and he compares the use of σοφίαι in 
Aristoph. Aaz., and “sapientiae” in Cic. Zusc. 111. 18. But this is 
too refined. It deserves notice that in ch. ἵν. 18 and Col. 1. 20, 
St. Paul speaks of his readers having been “darkened in their 
δίανοια," and “enemies in their 6.” Here, while by no means 
admitting a hendiadys, ‘‘cogitationes carnales,” we must at least 
allow that διανοιῶν acquires its bad significance from the preceding 
σαρκός, so that it nearly = “the σάρξ and its δίανοιαι.᾽ 

καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς. ‘This order, which is that of 
the Text. Rec., is established by καὶ B K εἰς, Chrys. Lachmann 
adopted φύσει τέκνα, with AD GLP, Vulg. Syr-Harcl. 

The change from the participle to the finite verb need occasion 
no difficulty ; it is, in fact, required by the sense. Had ὄντες been 
written it would be co-ordinate with ποιοῦντες and subordinate to 
ἀνεστράφημεν, and explanatory of it, “doing the desires . . . and 
being the children...” Whatever view is taken of the latter 
clause, these two are not co-ordinate. Not merely, therefore, for 
emphasis, but because the latter is a distinct predication, co-ordinate 
with ἐν οἷς aveorp., Or, more exactly, expressing a consequence of 
that, the verb is in the indicative,—‘“‘and so we were.’ 

τέκνα ὀργῆς is understood by many as=actual objects of God’s 
wrath, τέκνα being used as suitable to Israel, and then by a sort of 
irony is added, not “of Abraham” or “of God,” but “by nature 
of wrath.” There could be no objection to such an interpretation 
if it corresponded with the context ; but here, if the actual wrath of 
God were intended, we should expect it to be defined by Θεοῦ or 
the article, or otherwise. But how strange, if not impossible, would 
be the expression “children of God’s wrath”; and especially so 
here, where in the same breath they are described as at the same 
time objects of God’s love, without anything to soften the apparent 
opposition! Nor can it be said that this is at all implied in the 
word réxva. On the contrary, we have several instances in the 
Old Testament in which “son of” followed by a word denoting 


II. 8] JEWS AND GENTILES DEAD IN SIN 45 


punishment cannot reasonably be given any other meaning than 
either “worthy of,” or “‘in danger of.” Thus Deut. xxv. 2, “If 
the wicked man be a son of stripes, the judge shall . . . cause him 
to be beaten before his face,” etc.; rightly rendered in the Sept. ἐὰν 
ἄξιος ἢ πληγῶν. 1 Sam. xxvi. 16 (David to Abner), “Ye are sons 
of death, because ye have not kept watch over your lord.” 2 Sam. 
xii. 5 (David to Nathan), ‘“‘’ The man that hath done this is a son of 
death.” In these two passages the RV. has correctly “‘ worthy to 
die,” and in the former no other interpretation is possible. In 
1 Sam. xx. 31, RV. has in the text (with AV.) “shall surely die,” 
but in the margin ‘‘is worthy to die.” In Ps. Ixxix. 11 and cil. 20, 
“sons of death” are “those who are in danger of death.” 

These instances, together with the indefiniteness of ὀργῆς, justify 
us in understanding the words to mean “ objects, ze. fit objects of 
wrath,” ‘deserving of wrath.” And so they are interpreted by 
Chrysostom, “We have provoked God to wrath, τουτέστιν, 
ὀργὴ ἦμεν Kat οὐδὲν erepov” (explaining that he who is ἀνθρώπου 
τέκνον 15 ἄνθρωπος) “πάντες ἐπράττομεν ἄξια ὀργῆς." Similarly 
Oecumenius, ‘‘ As those who do things worthy of perdition or of 
hell are called τέκνα ἀπωλείας καὶ γεέννης [e.g. 2 Thess. 1]. 3; 
Matt. xxiii. 15] οὕτω καὶ τέκνα ὀργῆς ot ἄξια ὀργῆς." 

Why is φύσει inserted? ‘This question does not seem hard to 
answer. It must first be remarked that φύσις is opposed some- 
times to νόμος, sometimes to θέσις, ἀνάγκη, etc., but does not 
necessarily mean “by birth.” Rom. 11. 14, the Gentiles do φύσει 
τὰ τοῦ νόμου ; I Cor. ΧΙ. 14, 7 φύσις teaches that if a man have long 
hair it is a shame. Josephus says of David that he was φύσει 
δίκαιος καὶ θεοσεβής (Ant. vi. 7. 1), and of the Pharisees φύσει 
ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν (xill. το. 6). We have φύσει φιλογεωργότατος in 
iene Orc, xx, 25., (Compare also: Philo; Ye Conf, Ling. Ὁ: 327K, 
GAN οὐκ ἀντιλογικοὶ γεγόνασιν ὅσοι τῆς ἐπιστήμης καὶ ἀρετῆς ζῆλον 
ἔσχον. Τί is, in fact, used like our word “naturally.” Here the 
opposition suggested might be to χάριτι; but as the Jews are in 
question, it is more probably to θέσει, their covenant position as 
the people of God, by which they were holy branches of a holy 
root, to whom belonged the υἱοθεσία (Rom. xi. 16, 21). “We 
Jews, too, just as the heathen, were, apart from the covenant, 
τέκνα ὀργῆς." 


From the time of Augustine these words have been supposed by many to 
contain a direct assertion of original sin. Thus Calvin, ‘‘ Paulus nos cum 
peccato gigni testatur, quemadmodum serpentes suum yvenenum ex utero 
afferunt.” 

But, first, this gives a very great emphasis to φύσει, which its position 
forbids. Secondly, it supposes καὶ ἤμεθα to refer to, or at least include, a 
time prior to ἐν οἷς av., which seems not possible. Thirdly, it does not 
harmonise with the context. That treats of actual sin (including, of course, 
character), and the immediate context of the Jews only. It would be natural 


46 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [II. 4 


and intelligible that this description should be followed by mention of the 
wrath thereby incurred; it would also be intelligible, though less natural, 
that it should be followed by a statement that in addition to this we inherited 
a sinful and guilty nature. The interpretation in question supposes that 
neither of these is mentioned ; the wrath incurred by actual sin is omitted, 
while that incurred by birth sin is mentioned without mention of its cause, 
which is left to be inferred. And fourthly, even this is stated expressly only 
of the Jews; it is assumed as self-evident of the Gentiles, of λοιποί. The 
reader has to fill up the sentence somewhat in this way, ‘‘ We fulfilled the 
desires of the flesh [and thus became objects of God’s wrath; and, in 
addition to this, we were even before committing any actual sin inheritors of a 
sinful nature, and so] already by nature objects of His wrath.” 

It is true, indeed, that men are born with a sinful and corrupt nature ; but 
to say this is not to say that the infant who has committed no actual sin is an 
actual object of God’s wrath ; still less does it prove that the apostle’s words 
here imply it. Chrysostom has no trace of such an interpretation ; in fact he 
seems even to regard these words as guarding against a similar interpretation 
of θελήματα σαρκός. ‘* That is [he says], οὐδὲν πνευματικὸν φρονοῦντες. But 
that he may not be suspected of saying this in disparagement of the flesh, 
and lest one should think the offence not great, see how he guards himself. 
Fulfilling the desires, etc.; he (the apostle) says, we provoked God”; adding 
what has been quoted above. Jerome gives as alternatives, ‘‘ Vel propter 
corpus humilitatis corpusque mortis et quod ab adolescentia mens hominum 
apposita sit ad malum.” ‘‘ Vel quod ex eo tempore quo possumus habere 
notitiam Dei, et ad pubertatem venimus, omnes aut opere aut lingua aut 
cogitatione peccemus.” He mentions some who took φύσει here to mean 
**prorsus”; cf. ἀληθῶς or γνησίως, Oecum.; but the word never has this 
meaning. 


ot λοιποί, the heathen, cf. τ Thess. iv. 13. 

4. 6 δὲ Θεός resumes from ver. 1 after the interruption, and now 
with the subject ; οὖν is more usual in such a resumption; but 
δέ is more suitable here, on account of the contrast of what is 
now to be said with what precedes. Jerome’s comment is charac- 
teristic, ‘‘Conjunctionem causalem in eo loco in quo ait: Deus 
autem etc. arbitramur aut ab indoctis scriptoribus additum et 
vitium inolevisse paulatim, aut ab ipso Paulo, qui erat imperitus 
sermone et non scientia, superflue usurpatum.” Erasmus’ remark 
is more correct, “Hyperbati longioris ambitum ipse correxit 
Apostolus.” 

πλούσιος dv ἐν ἐλέει, “being as He is” (the participle assigning 
the reason), not simply ἐλεήμων, but “rich in mercy” (Chrys.). 
Compare Rom. ix. 23, ‘make known the riches of His glory on 
σκεύη ἐλέους." In classical writers πλούσιος is construed with 
a (genitive of the thing, but in the N.T. with ἐν, see Jas. 11. 5, ἐν 
πίστει ; and similarly the verbs πλουτεῖν, πλουτίζεσθαι {τ Conan sp: 
Cc Compare the correspondence of ἔλεος and ἀπειθεία in Rom. xi. Sit. 
ἀγάπη is not a particular form of ἔλεος, but is the cause from 
which, or by reason of which, ἔλεος was exercised. 

διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην, “ propter,” Vulg. “for His great love” ; 
cf. Philem. 8, “for love’s sake.” ἥν, cognate accusative, a very 
common usage, both in classical and N.T. Greek. Here the 


II. 5] QUICKENED WITH CHRIST 47 


addition ἣν ἦγ. ἡμᾶς, being not necessary to the sense, gives 
great emphasis: to the expression of the Divine love. Nor is 
αὐτοῦ to be neglected, “ His love” marking more distinctly that 
it is from Him alone and His attitude of love that this mercy 
proceeds. 

ἡμᾶς now includes both the ὑμεῖς of ver. 1 and the ἡμᾶς of ver. 3, 
and includes therefore both Jews and Gentiles. 

5. kal ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκρούς. The καί does not signify “us also 
altogether,” which is forbidden by the position of ἡμᾶς (not καὶ 
ἡμᾶς), and for the same reason it does not resume the καί of ver. 1. 
It is best taken as “Even,” “‘Even when we were dead,” etc. 
It is objected, indeed, that it is only the dead who can be 
“brought to life,” and for this reason Meyer takes καί as the 
copula, ‘‘on account of His great love, and when we were dead” ; 
but these two ideas are not co-ordinate. Soden, for the same 
reason, joins the words with the preceding, ‘loved us even when,” 
etc. This, no doubt, gives a good sense, although the antithesis 
between “loved” and ‘when dead” is not very natural, whereas 
that between νεκρούς and ἐζωοποίησε is striking. Besides, the 
proposed construction would require ἡμᾶς to be expressed with 
συνεζ. not with ὄντας, since ἠγάπησεν already has its object ex- 
pressed. But the objection is hypercritical. ‘The answer to it is, 
not that vex. is qualified by τοῖς παραπτ. which has no emphasis, 
nor that συνεζ. is defined by ἐν Χριστῷς, The true answer is 
found in the position of the verb. ‘“‘ Gave life even to the dead ” 
would not be a natural mode of expression, but “ Even the dead 
He restored to life” is perfectly natural. The καὶ ὄντας, «.7.A., 
attracts the reader’s attention to some striking instance of God’s 
love about to be mentioned. Comp. Col. i. 13, where the 
connexion is unambiguous. Indeed, it is not quite true that 
ζωοποιεῖν can be only of the dead. See John vi. 63 compared 
Withi ver. 54> also)1 Cor. xv. 36; 2 Cor. in: 6. 

τοῖς παραπτώμασιν = our trespasses, the trespasses already men- 
tioned in ver. 1. 

συνεζωοποίησε τῷ Χριστῷ. 


B adds ἐν after the verb with 17 Arm. and some other authorities,—a 
reading admitted to the margin by Westcott and Hort, and in brackets by 
Lachmann. It might, with equal ease, be omitted or inserted accidentally. 
There could be no reason for intentional omission, but it might be added 
intentionally from the construction being mistaken. It is observable that 
B, Arm. also insert ἐν after νεκροῖς, if, deed, a version can be safely cited 
in such a case. Internal evidence is against ἐν, as we get a better sense by 
taking Χριστῷ as dependent on συν. 


Meyer, having understood νεκρούς to refer to future eternal 
death, of course understands ovveé. as referring to the eternal life 
which begins with the resurrection, This view he regards as alone 


48 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS (II. 5 


consistent with the context in which the translation into heaven is 
expressed, and again in ver. 7 the times after the Parousia are 
referred to. His view then is, that God has made believers alive 
with Christ ; that is, that by virtue of the dynamic connexion of 
Christ with His believers as the Head with its body, their re- 
vivification is objectively included in His; “‘quum autem fides 
suscipitur ea omnia a Deo applicantur homini et ab homine rata 
habentur,” Bengel. The apostle therefore views this as having 
already taken place, although the subjective individual participa- 
tion remains future, and he might have used the future as in 
1 Cor. xv. 22. The peculiar use of the aorist here he refers to 
the principle thus stated by Fritzsche (on Rom. viii. 30, il. p. 206), 
“Ponitur Aoristus de re, quae, quamvis futura sit, tamen pro 
peracta recte censeatur, quum vel alia re jam facta contineatur, 
ut h. 1., vel a conditione suspensa cogitetur, quam jam obtinuisse 
finxeris, v. Hom. //, iv. 161; John xv. 6.” This usage was first ex- 
plained by Hermann, ‘“ De emend. ratione graecae gr.” pp. 190 ff, 
but, as stated by him, does not apply here. 

Of the two passages to which Fritzsche after Hermann refers, 
that from Homer is, says Hermann, the only instance known to 
me in which it may be reasonably questioned whether the aorist 
has not the signification of the future, viz. Hom. //. iv. 160-162. 
It is as follows :— 


+ ἠὲ τ 3 3.3 , 3 RS, 
εἴπερ yap τε Kal avTiK Ολύμπιος οὐκ ἐτέλεσσεν, 
+ Min. Ν “ 7 Le > 4 
ἐκ τε Kal ὀψὲ τελεῖ, σύν TE μεγάλῳ ἀπέτισαν, 
“- ~ / 
σὺν σφῇσιν κεφαλῇσι γυναιξί τε καὶ τεκέεσσιν. 


Here the poet throws himself forward into the time of the verb 
τελεῖ, and sees the instantaneous carrying out of this vindication 
of oaths; as if he said, “And, lo! at once they have paid the 
penalty.” ‘Rem futuram non ut futuram sed ut praeteritam 
narrat: nimirum post quam Troianos punierit Iuppiter tum ili 
poenas dederunt” (Hermann). The other example is from John 
xv. 6, ἐὰν μή τις μείνῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ws TO κλῆμα, καὶ ἐξηράνθη. 
Here also a condition is expressed from which the consequence 
necessarily follows. Similarly Epictetus, cap. 59, ἂν ὑπὲρ δύναμιν 
ἀναλάβῃς τι πρόσωπον, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἠσχημόνησας, καὶ ὃ ἠδύνασο 
ἐκπληρῶσαι, παρέλιπες (see Jelf, ὃ 403). In the present passage, if 
συνεζ. is referred to the future, there is no resemblance to these 
instances. We have already seen, however, that νεκρούς includes 
present spiritual death, and that indeed as its primary notion, 
although it cannot be limited to that, since the consequence, 
natural and eternal death, is necessarily suggested with it. Accord- 
ingly, the vivification, though primarily spiritual, includes in it our 
share in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. In i. 20, 21 
the writer has pointed to the resurrection and exaltation of Christ 


II. 6] QUICKENED WITH CHRIST 49 


as an exhibition of Divine power; here he declares that by virtue 
of our union with Him as of members with the head, we participate 
in the same. ‘“Quamvis salus nostra in spe sit adhuc abscondita 
quantum ad nos spectat: in Christo nihilominus beatam im- 
mortalitatem possidemus,” Calvin. Col. i. 13 is closely parallel. 
The fact that baptism is there referred to as the means by which 
the individual entered subjectively into fellowship with Christ, and 
is not mentioned here, does not justify the adoption of a different 
meaning for συνεζ. here, such as that of Harless, whose view is 
that the risen life and glorification of Christ are here spoken of as 
ours, because they are the glory of “our” Redeemer. 

Chrysostom’s comment is: εἰ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ζῇ, καὶ ἡμεῖς" ἐζωοποίησε 
κἀκεῖνον καὶ ἡμᾶς, to which Theophylact adds: ἐκεῖνον ἐνεργείᾳ, 
ἡμᾶς δυνάμει νῦν, per ὀλίγον δὲ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ. συν- Clearly “with 
Christ? Colm 13. 

χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι. “It is by grace that ye have been 
saved,”—a lively parenthetical reminder suggested by the preced- 
ing words, and vindicating the expression “ vivified when dead.” 
Being dead, ye could do nothing of yourselves, so that it must 
needs be all by grace, 2.6. simply by God’s free gift. We are so 
accustomed to use “grace” in a technical theological sense, that 
we are prone to think of that sense where it does not really come 
in. This technical sense of “grace” as something conferred is 
not in question here, and any reference to the distinction between 
prevenient and co-operating grace, etc., is out of place. The 
word is used just as in royal letters the words “ΟΥ̓ our special 
grace and mere motion.” 


DG, Vulg. a/. prefix οὗ (Ὁ οὗ τῇ) to χάριτι. 


The perfect ἐστε σεσωσμένοι here is in striking contrast with 
the aorist ἐσώθημεν in Rom. vill. 24, TH yap ἐλπίδι ἐσ. But the 
perfect is as suitable here as it would have been unsuitable there, 
where it would contradict ἐλπίδι. Then, what was to be said had 
reference to the definite moment of the readers’ introduction into 
the Christian Church, and the point was that the σωτηρία obtained 
at that definite moment was in part a matter of hope. Here it is 
not a past moment that is in question, as if χάρις was over and done 
with, but the readers’ present condition as the continuing result of 
their conversion. In one sense their σωτηρία was complete, viz. 
regarded with respect to that from which they were delivered ; 
in another incomplete, viz. with respect to that which was 
reserved for them. So to persons rescued from a wreck, but not 
yet arrived in port, we might say either ἐσώθητε or σεσωσμένοι ἐστε. 

6. συνήγειρε is nearly synonymous with συνεζωοποίησε, but sug- 
gests more distinctly physical resurrection. In Col. i. 1, as here, 
the ἐγερθῆναι σὺν Χριστῷ is treated as past, and is made the motive 

4 


50 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [II. 7 


for seeking those things which are above, “.. . for ye died, and 
your life is hid with Christ in God.” ‘The present passage ex- 
presses this more vividly and strikingly, συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς -ἐπου- 
paviots. “Non dicit in dextra; Christo sua manet excellentia,” 
Bengel (and so Estius less tersely). ἐν τοῖς ἐπ. denotes the true or 
ideal locality of the Church as the “kingdom of heaven.” Comp. 
Heb. xii. 22, προσεληλύθατε. . . πόλει Θεοῦ ζῶντος, Ἱερουσαλὴμ 
ἐπουρανίῳ. 

ἐν Χριστῷ after συν- has caused some perplexity, and led some 
commentators to understand the ovr- in ver. 6 (not in ver. 5) as 
joining ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς together. But it seems better to under- 
stand ἐν X. as completing and defining with more precision what was 
intended by σύν, for it is not simply together with Christ that this 
vivification and exaltation takes place, but also zz Him, by virtue 
of union with Him as the Head. 

7. wa ἐνδείξηται. The middle does not mean “for His own 
glory,” nor does the language of the verse suggest the idea of 
showing as a sample or specimen. ‘The verb seldom occurs in 
the active voice except as a legal expression, never in N.T. The 
middle involves no more than is already contained in αὐτοῦ, as the 
instances show: Rom. ii. 15, “show the work of the law written 
in their hearts”; 2 Cor. vili. 24, “showing the ἔνδειξις of your 
love and of our boasting” ; 2 Tim. iv. 14, ‘‘ Alexander the copper- 
smith πολλά μοι κακὰ ἐνεδείξατο." See also Tit. il. το, i. 2; Heb. 
vi. 10, 11. These instances also show that the word means, not 
“make known,” but ‘‘ exhibit in fact or act.” 

ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσι τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις. ‘In the coming ages.” It 
seems more suitable to the context, as well as to the use of 
parallel expressions, to understand this of the future life, ὃ αἰὼν 
6 μέλλων, in which the state described in the preceding words will 
be actually realised and made manifest. The present participle is 
not against this, for in Mark x. 30 we have ὁ αἰὼν ὁ ἐρχόμενος in this 
sense. The plural may at first sight seem against it, but is not 
really so; it only indicates that the apostle viewed the future age 
as involving stages of development in which the exceeding riches 
of God’s grace will be more and more clearly manifested, and that 
becomes actual, the knowledge of which is mentioned as the 
object of desire in 1. 18. Compare the frequent expression εἰς τοὺς 
αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, also Jude 25, eis πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας ; and the 
remarkable expression, 1 Tim. i. 17, τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων. These 
αἰῶνες may be regarded as constituting a whole in contrast to the 
present life, and so be named in the singular ὁ ai. 6 μέλλων. 

τὸ ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ. ‘The neuter πλοῦτος 
is best supported here. In modern Greek the word is indifferently 
masculine or neuter. 

ἐν χρηστότητι ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς. These words are to be so connected, 


II. 8] SALVATION BY GRACE 51 


not ὑπερβάλλον ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς. To exhibit χάρις in χρηστότης would be 
tautological. Nor is the absence of the article any objection, for 
χρηστότης implies, not merely an inherent quality, but one which 
involves in its idea exercise towards another, so that it requires 
to be,completely defined by the expression of this object. 

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The ground of this kindness shown towards 
us is in Christ, not in us. As Calvin remarks, “ Notanda repetitio 
nominis Christi quia nihil gratiae neque amoris a Deo sperari 
vult, nisi ipso intercedente.” 

8. τῇ γὰρ χάριτι, κιτιλ. How justly I say “the exceeding riches 
of His grace,” for, etc. ‘The apostle now speaks in more detail 
about the truth of which his mind was so full. χάριτι has the 
article, because it is the grace already mentioned. 


διὰ πίστεως without the article, δὶ ABD*GP 17, Chrys. Rec. has the 
article, with D° K L and most cursives. 

This is the subjective condition, the “‘ causa apprehendens,” the necessary 
medium on the side of man, ‘‘ the living capacity for receiving the powers of 
the higher world,” Olshausen. The whole emphasis is on τῇ χάριτι. The 
article before πίστεως would imply that its possession was presupposed : 
“*your faith.” 


ςς 


καὶ τοῦτο, “and that” (for which καὶ ταῦτα is more frequent in 
classical writers), is referred by the Fathers, Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
and Jerome, to “faith.” ‘Thus Chrysostom says : οὐδὲ ἡ πίστις ἐξ 
ἡμῶν, εἰ γὰρ οὐκ ἦλθεν, εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐκάλεσε, πῶς ἠδυνάμεθα πιστεῦσαι; 
πῶς γὰρ, φησὶ, πιστεύσουσιν ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσωσιν. He proceeds to 
interpret the words Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον as applying, not to faith, but to 
the grant of salvation on condition of faith, ἐπεὶ πῶς σώζει J πίστις, 
εἰπέ μοι, ἄνευ ἔργων; τοῦτο αὐτὸ Θεοῦ δῶρόν ἐστιν. This is not 
very different from what Theophylact says: οὐ τὴν πίστιν λέγει 
δῶρον Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὸ διὰ πίστεως σωθῆναι, τοῦτο δῶρόν ἐστι θεοῦ. 
Modern commentators (Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, etc.) who have 
adopted the view that τοῦτο refers to πίστις, understand the mean- 
ing to be that the power or exercise of faith (faith subjectively 
considered) is the gift of God (as Phil. i. 29), in which case καὶ 
τοῦτο to δῶρον must be parenthetical, since to say that faith is not 
ἐξ ἔργων would be trivial in the extreme. 

The gender of τοῦτο is not fatal to the reference to πίστις, but 
to separate ἐξ ὑμῶν in this way from ἐξ ἔργων does violence to the 
connexion. The latter is a nearer definition of the former. 
Recent commentators refer καὶ τοῦτο to σεσωσμένοι ἐστε, or, better, 
to the whole clause ; for after χάριτι had been expressed with cec., 
the emphatic καὶ τοῦτο would be out of place. In fact, the apostle 
emphasises and defines τῇ x. more closely by denying the 
opposites ; first, of the objective source χάρις by οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν ; and, 
secondly, of the subjective element by οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων (Meyer). 

Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον. God's is the gift = Θεοῦ δῶρον τὸ δῶρόν ἐστι, 


52 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [11. 9, 10 


Θεοῦ being placed first for the sake of the emphatic contrast with 
ὑμῶν. 

9. οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων. He does not say ἔργων νόμου, because not writ- 
ing to Jewish believers. De Wette (who does not accept the Pauline 
authorship) thinks the opposition in οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων has no meaning, 
since the writer is not thinking of Jews, and heathen believers did 
not need to be warned against taking pride in the righteousness of 
works, especially after what had preceded in vv. r and 5. But the 
οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων was such an essential principle of St. Paul’s teaching 
that no doubt he must have often repeated it amongst both Jews and 
Gentiles ; nor is there any force in the reference to the past condition 
of the readers. Might not Gentile converts be tempted to regard 
their salvation as secured by their new holiness of life? and not 
the less because their former sins were when they were in darkness. 

iva μή τις καυχήσηται. Some commentators insist on giving 
iva its full final force, “in order that”; so that to prevent boasting 
was God’s purpose, or one of His purposes, in appointing that men 
should not be justified by works. Are we then to say that, in 
order that men should not boast, He has refused to allow salvation 
or justification by works? Nay; but no man can be justified by 
his works, and “when they have been betrayed by these,” God 
appointed that He should save them χάριτι διὰ πίστεως. So 
in substance Chrysostom and Theophylact, whose words are: τὸ 
yap ἵνα οὐκ αἰτιολογικόν ἐστι, GAN ἐκ τῆς ἀποβάσεως TOD πράγματος. 
Yet the clause is not to be reduced to a mere statement of result, 
since it is a result inseparable from God’s purpose. Stier suggests 
that ἵνα, x.7.A., may be viewed as the expression of the writer’s 
purpose: ‘This I say in order that,” etc. This cannot fairly be 
called unnatural, but it would require the verb to be present. 

10. αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα κτισθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς. 
Proof of the foregoing clauses from οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, not of ἵνα tis... 
only, which is only a secondary thought. If we are God’s work- 
manship, our salvation is not our own work, but the gift of God ; 
and if we are created in Christ for good works, there could be no 
works preceding this creation from which any merit could arise. 
The argument turns on αὐτοῦ, which is emphatic, ‘‘ His workman- 
ship we are,” and on κτισθέντες ; and the following words still more 
distinctly express the impossibility of any merit preceding this 
κτίσις. 

ποίημα, found again only Rom. i. 20 of the works of creation. 
Here, too, it is referred by Tert. Greg. Naz. and Basil to physical 
creation. This is refuted by the nearer definition given in 
κτισθέντες, κιτιλ. Pelagius includes both the physical and the 
spiritual, ‘quod vivimus, quod spiramus, quod intelligimus, quod 
credere possumus, ipsius est, quia ipse conditor nostri est.” ‘The 
word can hardly of itself be used simply of the new or spiritual 


II. 10] CREATED FOR GOOD WORKS 53 


creation ; it may perhaps be chosen to suggest strongly the analogy 
of this to the first creation, the nature of this ποίημα being left to 
be defined by the following words. Perhaps we may better say 
that the apostle’s mind was so full of the idea of the “‘new man,” 
that he writes as if this new creation might be regarded as the 
first “making” of us. . 

κτισθέντες. “Created”; for if anyone is in Christ, he is καινὴ 
κτίσις, 2 Cor. v. 17; compare also Gal. vi. 15. κτίζειν is appro- 
priately used of the καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, the coming into being of 
which is called παλιγγενεσία, Tit. ili. 5. We are not, then, to 
weaken it into “ efficere.” 

ἐν Χριστῷ “Il. Cf. ver. 15 and 2 Cor. v.17, above. ἐν expresses 
the fellowship 1 in which that new creation takes place. 

ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς. ἐπί, with the dative, is used to express the 
condition upon which a thing happens or is done; for instance, 
the conditions of a treaty ἐπ᾽ ἴσοις, ἐπὶ πᾶσι δικαίοις, ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς, ἐπ᾽ 
ἀργυρίῳ, ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ψυχῇ (Plato, Ref. ix. p. 590 A); δανείζειν 
ἐπὶ ὑποθήκῃ (Dem. p. 908, 21). Hence the expression ἐφ᾽ ᾧτε. 
Many, if not most, of the instances adduced in support of the 
meaning, ‘with a view to such and such an end,” are better 
explained by this usage, ¢.g. δώρῳ ἔπι μεγάλῳ in Hom. 72. x. 304, 
τίς κέν μοι τόδε ἔργον ὑποσχόμενος τελέσειεν δώρῳ ἔπι μ., Certainly not 
“with a view to,” but “on the terms of receiving”; 77. ix. 482, 
μοῦνον, τηλύγετον, πολλοῖσιν ἐπὶ κτεάτεσσιν ; and v. 154, “he begat 
no other son,” ἐπὶ κτεάτεσσι λιπέσθαι, the possessions being an 
accompanying condition of the sonship. So also in such phrases 
as ἐπὶ ξενίᾳ δέχεσθαι Or καλεῖν ; φάσκοντες er ἐλευθερίᾳ προεστάναι 
τῶν Ῥλλήνων (Dem. p. 661, 16); ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ (τινὸς κατατιθέναι 
χρήματα) (16. p. 1355, 18). καὶ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐν Κορίνθῳ μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι. 
Where the condition is (as in the last instance, not in that preced- 
ing) that something be granted, the meaning amounts to the same 
as “with a view to”; but this does not seem to be contained in the 
preposition. Indeed, the following words, καὶ ἐφ᾽ @, «.7.A., appear 
to decide the signification of ἐπί here. 

Similarly in Gal. v. 13, ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε means, not 
that freedom was the end or object, but the condition of their 
calling, the terms on which they were called, viz. so as to be free. 
Again, 1 Thess. ἵν. 7, οὐ yap ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ. 
Not on such terms were we called, not so that we should be 
impure. In the following words, ἀλλὰ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, ἐν appears to 
be preferred, because ἁγιασμός did not express any outward con- 
dition. 2 Tim. 11. 14, ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων “with a view 
to,” would be clearly out of place; “to the subverting” gives the 
sense correctly. It is the inevitable concomitant. Here épya 
ἀγαθά are not the object of the new creation, but are involved in 
it as an inseparable condition. 


54 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [II. 10 


οἷς προητοίμασεν 6 Θεὸς ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν. The 
construction here is much disputed. ‘The most obvious explana- 
tion is that οἷς is in the dative by attraction, “‘ which God before 
prepared.” ‘Then we ask in what sense can works be said to have 
been prepared, since they have no existence previous to their being 
done. An easy answer appears to be, that they are appointed, 
and so, though not realised in fact, are realised in the divine 
thought or purpose. ‘This is the view taken after Augustine by 
Harless, who thinks this the only possible sense here, since the 
apostle expressly adds that the actual realisation is expected from 
the believers. Thus St. Paul uses προετοιμάζειν here of things, in 
the same sense as he had used προορίζειν in i. 11 of persons. De 
Wette and Braune, etc., agree. ‘The difficulty in this view is that 
ἑτοιμάζειν is ποί -- ὁρίζειν. ‘‘ Aliud est enim, parare ἑτοιμάζειν, aliud 
definire épilew” (Fritzsche, Rom. 111. 339). The instance which 
Harless cites from Matt. xxv. 34, “the kingdom prepared,” is not 
parallel, nor Gen. xxiv. 14. 

For this reason Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer, etc., reject this view, 
but fail to give a satisfactory interpretation. ‘‘ God (says Ellicott) 
made ready for us, prearranged, prepared a sphere of moral action, 
or (to use the simile of Chrys.) a road, with the intent that we 
should walk in it and not leave it: this sphere, this road, was 
ἔργα ἀγαθά." Similarly Eadie, who suggests that προορίζειν marks 
the destination, προετοιμ. the means: ‘they have been prescribed, 
defined, adapted to us,” “ by prearranging the works in their 
sphere, character, and suitability, and also by preordaining the 
law which commands, the inducement or appliances which impel, 
and the creation in Christ which qualifies and empowers us,” etc. 
But he does not explain how things non-existent can be arranged 
except by ordaining. These interpretations do not essentially 
differ from the first. 

The similes of a sphere or a road (used by Chrysostom for 
homiletical purposes) are inappropriate. A road exists objectively 
before one walks in it. A truer simile would be a path through 
the seas. Perhaps we might say that the word zpoer. is chosen, not 
as being logically accurate, but in order to express in the most 
striking manner the truth that the good works do not proceed 
from ourselves ; they are, as it were, received from the Creator as 
out of a treasure, which is thus figuratively conceived as being . 
prepared before. But this hardly meets the difficulty. Olshausen 
understands that the circumstances and conditions under which it 
becomes possible to do good works are ordered by God, zpoer. 
differing from προορίζειν only as relating more to details (compare 
Eadie, above). 

Stier suggests taking the verb intransitively, οἷς being the 
dative of reference. ‘For which God made previous prepara- 


ΤΠ It] THE GENTILES AT ONE TIME ALIENS 55 


tion.” The simple verb ἑτοιμάζειν is used intransitively in Luke 
ΙΧ. 52, ὥστε ἑτοιμάσαι aire. This, however, is not entirely 
parallel. The object to be understood there is readily supplied, 
“‘parare paranda”; just as in English we may say “prepare,” 
“make ready,” viz. “things.” But here we should have to ask, 
Prepare what? ‘The answer would perhaps be “us.” And as 
Fritzsche points out, this ἡμᾶς as the object did not require to be 
expressed, since it is sufficiently indicated by the following words, 
ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν. ‘This seems, after all, the most un- 
objectionable interpretation, and is adopted by Reuss, v. Soden, 
Oltramare, etc. Eadie also expresses himself as inclined to adopt 
it, if it could be fully justified, but he does not refer to the sug- 
gestion of ἡμᾶς contained in the following words. This interpreta- 
tion cannot fairly be charged with making ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατή- 
σωμεν a mere tautology. These words strongly accentuate the 
moral purpose of the preparation. The supposition of a Hebraism, 
as if οἷς. . . ἐν αὐτοῖς were = ἐν ots, is inadmissible. 

προ has its proper force, not, however, as if it meant before the 
κτίσις, aS éT. Expresses an act, not a purpose; and, of course, not 
after, because of zpo-, therefore at the time of the κτίσις, so that 
ἑτοιμάζειν repeats κτίζειν ἐπὶ ἐρ. ay., only with the addition of προ 
to express that the new creation is the primary thing but has this 
end in view, the works being only a result. It must be observed 
that ἔργα ἀγαθά is general; not τοῖς dy. ἔργοις, the definite good 
works, etc. 

There is no ground for saying that the weight here assigned 
to good works goes beyond what is elsewhere expressed by St. 
Paul, as Baur insists, or that the importance of faith is lessened. 
Here, as elsewhere, works have their ground in faith. Bengel 
well says: “αἰ ambularemus, non salvaremur, aut viveremus.” 

11-22. Ye Gentiles were formerly aliens from the commonwealth 
of Israel, and had no share in the covenants of promise ; but Christ 
by His death has cast down the barrier which separated you from 
the City of God, and has reconciled you both to God. Now, there- 
Jore, all alike have access to Him, the Father, and all alike form 
part of the holy temple which He inhabits. 

11. Διὸ μνημονεύετε. These blessings should move them to 
think more of their former state, so that they should be the more 
thankful. “Talis recordatio gratum animum acuit, et fidem 
“roborat.” Διό is best taken as referring to the whole section, 
Vivien τ 6 LO: 

ὅτι ποτὲ dpets in this order ΕἾ AB D* Vulg. Rec. has ὑμεῖς 
ποτέ, with 8° D°G (prefixes οἱ to ποτέ), Syr. Harcl. But Syr. Pesh. 
Boh. and some other versions have ποτε after ἔθνη. ὅτι is resumed 
by ὅτι, ver. 12, and ποτέ by τῷ καιρῷ ἐκ. Hence we need not 
supply either ὄντες or ἦτε, but τὰ ἔθνη is in simple apposition to ὑμεῖς. 


56 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS ΠῚ 11 


τὰ ἔθνη, with the article as indicating a class. Since ἔθνη ev 
σαρκί expresses one single idea, the article does not require re- 
petition before ἐν. ἐν σαρκί must have the same sense here as in 
the following clause, since the former is explained by ot λεγόμενοι 
ἀκροβυστία, and this has its antithesis in τῆς Aey. περιτομῆς. It 
therefore refers to their uncircumcision, not to their former carnal 
state, nor to their descent. Chrysostom and other Fathers take 
ἐν σαρκί as opposed to ἐν πνεύματι. ‘Thus Jerome: “ Ephesios in 
carne vocans ostendit in spiritu esse non gentes.” ‘This contra- 
dicts ποτέ and ver. 12. ‘The apostle is not exalting them, but 
calling attention to their previous inferiority to the Jews. 

“Remember that formerly ye Gentiles in the flesh called (in 
contempt) Uncircumcision by the so-called Circumcision in the 
flesh, a circumcision merely physical, made with hands.” He 
reminds them of the ignominy which in the mind of the Jews 
attached to the name of heathen and of the uncircumcised. This 
contempt is already predicated in the words οἱ λεγόμενοι axp. ; and 
the lowness of their condition is further shown by the following 
description of those who so despised them, those, namely, who 
prided themselves on a mere fleshly distinction made with hands. 
Why, in fact, does he say λεγομένης περιτομῆς, and why χειροποιή- 
tov? ‘There was no need to give the readers information on the 
name or the fact. ‘The latter word is clearly depreciatory, “a 
merely external and artificial thing-’ But he is far from depreciat- 
ing circumcision, in its true significance, as the sign of member- 
ship of the commonwealth of the people of God. Hence the use 
of λεγομένης, which by its adjectival connexion with περιτομῆς gets 
the signification “so called.” This is readily explained from the 
apostle’s use of περιτομή elsewhere in a spiritual, as contrasted 
with a merely physical sense, as in Rom. 11. 28, 29, ‘‘ Neither is 
that circumcision which is outward in the flesh . . . circumcision 
is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter.” Phil. i. 2, 
he calls the physical circumcision κατατομή, a term more con- 
temptuous than χειροποιήτου here: adding in ver. 3, “ We are the 
circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ 
Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh”; and in Col. 11. 11, 
which is strikingly illustrative of the present passage, “in whom 
ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands.” 
Soden thinks that χειροποιήτου here is superfluous, because there 
is no reference (as in Col.) to a spiritual circumcision, and ἐν σαρκί 
sufficiently emphasises the merely external character of the sign ; 
and hence he thinks the word introduced out of imitation of Col. 
il. 11. But it seems, on the contrary, to give emphasis and com- 
pleteness to the thought, and would naturally occur to the writer 
who about the same time wrote ἀχειροποιήτου in Col. 

Although “circumcision” is not used figuratively in the O.T., 


11.190] § THE GENTILES AT ONE TIME ALIENS 57 


“uncircumcision” is. Even in Lev. xxvi. 41 we have “their un- 
circumcised heart.” Jeremiah speaks of the uncircumcised ear of 
those who will not hearken (vi. 10), and calls the house of Israel 
“aneireumeised in) heart” Gx: 26). Comp. Ezek.. xliv. 7, “un- 
circumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh,” and Acts 
ὙΠ ΕΙΣ: 

12. ὅτι ἦτε τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ. Rec. has ἐν before 
τῷ καιρῷ. Τί is omitted by δ ABDG. 

ὅτι resumes the former ὅτι. ““ Remember, I say, that.” 

χωρὶς Χριστοῦ is taken by De Wette and Bleek as, not a 
predicate, but a circumstantial addition, “being at that time with- 
out Christ.” It would thus correspond with ἐν Χριστῷ, ver. 13, 
and would give the reason of their alienation from the common- 
wealth of Israel. But, considering the position of the words, this 
is a harsh construction, and would deprive the words of the 
emphasis which belongs to them as the opposite of the frequent 
ἐν Xp. in this Epistle. χωρὶς Xp. is, as Meyer says, the first tragic 
predicate. χωρίς is distinguished from ἄνευ by ‘Tittmann as 
follows: ““χωρίς ad subjectum quod ab objecto sejunctum est 
refertur, ἄνευ ad objectum quod a subjecto abesse cogitandum 
est.” According to this, χωρὶς Xp. would mean “ye were far from 
Christ” ; ἄνευ Xp. would be “Christ was not with you.” But this 
must be received with hesitation, seeing that χωρίς occurs in the 
N.T. forty times, and ἄνευ only thrice (Ellicott), viz. Matt. x. 29; 
1 Pet. ΠῚ. 1, iv. 9. In the last quoted passage ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ is 
equivalent to χωρὶς yoyyvopor, Phil. 11. 14. 

Schwegler sees here a concession to Judaism which is unlike 
St. Paul; but without reason, since the concession only relates to 
pre-Christian times, and the advantage possessed by the Jews in this 
respect is, as it must be, fully admitted by St. Paul (Rom. iii. 1 ff.). 

What is meant by χωρὶς Χριστοῦ is explained in the following 
words :— 

ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ. The verb ἀπαλλο- 
τριόω occurs also in iv. 18, ἀπ. τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, and Col. i. 21, 
without a genitive. In Ezek. xiv. 5, 7 we have az. az’ ἐμοῦ; in 
3 Mace. i. 4, τῶν πατρίων δογμάτων. The active verb occurs in 
Eccles. xi. 34, ἀπ. σε τῶν ἰδίων σου. 

The verb always means to estrange; here therefore “ estranged 
from” as opposed to “ being at home in.” 

πολιτεία Was interpreted by the ancients in the sense “manner 
of life,” “conversatio,” Vulg., a meaning which the word frequently 
has in Christian writers, and not in these alone; see Athen. i. p. 19 A. 
But to take it so here would be contrary to ver. 19, where the 
opposite of ἀπ. x.r.A. 15 συμπολῖται. It may mean either citizen- 
ship, or state, commonwealth. Many commentators have taken 
it in the former sense. It is questionable whether it could be so 


58 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS (II. 12 


used with a genitive of the nation or city. Nor does the verb 
ἀπηλλ. suggest such a meaning. Besides, the Greek and Roman 
conception of citizenship would not be appropriate here, and, 
further, we should have to explain the exclusion from citizenship 
as arising from exclusion from the commonwealth. Naturally it 
is the theocratic constitution from which they were excluded ; and 
the name Israel implies this, since this was the name of the people 
in their theocratic relation. Yet Chrysostom refers the words to 
the exclusion of the Gentiles from the temporal glories of Israel, 
εἶπε περὶ τῶν οὐρανίων πραγμάτων, λέγει Kal περὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 
ἐπειδὴ μεγάλην δόξαν εἶχον περὶ αὐτῶν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, in which he was 
followed by some moderns (as by Grotius). As if any Roman 
citizen or subject could regard as a misfortune the exclusion from 
a State which was an object of contempt ! 

Many commentators suppose that ἀπηλλ. implies a previous 
unity. ‘Thus Bengel: ‘ Abalienati, non alieni; participia praesup- 
ponunt gentes ante defectionem suam a fide patrum imo potius 
ante lapsum Adami fuisse participes lucis et vitae.” However 
attractive this view may be in itself, the conception is too new and 
important to be introduced here on so slight a ground. If it had 
been in the apostle’s mind, he would doubtless have referred to it 
more explicitly in some part of his writings. It is not hinted at 
in ver. 14, where we might have expected “again made” or the 
like. For an instance of the verb being used without reference to 
a previous state, see Ps. lvii. (1ν111.) 3, ἀπηλλοτριώθησαν ot ἁμαρτωλοὶ 
ἀπὸ μήτρας. Olshausen’s view is that the exclusion referred to 
is that which resulted from God’s restriction of His peculiar 
operations of grace to Israel. As far as alienation from God is 
referred to, however, it is true that men are regarded as originally, 
and from an ideal point of view, at one with God. 

καὶ ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. A further specification 
of what is meant by the preceding clause. ἕένος is followed 
by a genitive, not of “the point of view” (‘‘extraneos quod ad 
pactorum promissiones attinet,” Beza), but simply of separation 
or privation. So Soph. Oed. FR. 219, ξένος λόγου τοῦδ᾽ ἐξερῶ, 
ξένος δὲ τοῦ πραχθέντος. Plato, Apol. i, E€vws (ἔχειν) τῆς evade 
λεξεως. 

“The covenants of the promise.” ἐἔπαγγ. is connected with 
διαθηκῶν, not with ἐλπίδα, as the position of the word shows. The 
covenants were characterised by the promise of the Messiah (cf. 
Acts xii. 32). The plural is used with reference to the covenants 
with the patriarchs, but the Mosaic covenant is not excluded, 
although it was primarily νομοθεσία. 

ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες. The absence of the article shows that it is 
not the definite hope of the Messiah that is meant, but hope in 
the widest sense, so that the expression is so much the stronger, 


II. 18] THE GENTILES NOW BROUGHT NIGH 59 


“having no hope.” μή is used, not because the thought is 
dependent on what precedes, but because it is their own con- 
sciousness that is referred to. οὐκ ἔχοντες would express only 
the writer’s judgment of their state. Cf. οὐκ εἰδότες Θεόν, Gal. 
Iv. ὃς 

καὶ ἄθεοι. “The deepest stage of heathen misery,” Meyer. The 
word ἄθεος is not found in the Sept. or Apocrypha, and only here 
in the N.T. In Greek writers it occurs in three senses, “not 
believing in God, atheist” (Plato, AgoZ p. 26C). Secondly, 
“impious, godless” (Plato, Lege. p. 966 E), or “without God, 
without God’s help,” Soph. Qed. &., ἐπεὶ ἄθεος ἄφιλος 6 τι πύματον 
ὀλοίμαν. To understand it here as “forsaken by God” would be 
to introduce a conception not warranted by the expressions in the 
text. They were truly “without God,” as not knowing Him. 
Notwithstanding their many gods, they had no conception of a 
Creator and Governor to be loved and trusted. So far as their 
consciousness was concerned, they had no God. But God had 
not left Himself without a witness amongst them. The description 
is general, of the class to which the readers belonged. This was 
not the occasion for referring to the noble exceptions to the moral 
degradation of heathenism. It was, indeed, in Asia Minor that 
this degradation was lowest, so that the Romans traced to it the 
corruption which spread to the whole empire. 

ἐν τῷ Koop, to be joined both with ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχ. and with 
ἄθεοι, “in the world,” with all its troubles, trials, and uncertainties, 
ye were without Divine help; generally understood as contrasted 
with πολιτεία. 

13. νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿ἸΙησοῦ, ὑμεῖς ot ποτὲ ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγενήθητε 
ἐγγύς. νυνί opposed to τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ: ἐν Xp. “I. opposed to 
χωρὶς Χριστοῦ. We are not to supply either ἐστέ or ὄντες. Since 
the being in Christ was not prior to the being brought near, the 
interpretation, “postquam in Christo estis recepti” (Calvin, Har- 
less), is not admissible. Nor can we understand “cum in Christo 
sitis recepti,” which would not only make these words a superfluous 
addition, but would be hard to reconcile with the aorist. 

Ἰησοῦ is suitably added to Χριστῷ here, and indeed was 
almost necessary to the distinct expression of the thought. In 
ver. 12 it could not have been added, since that included times 
preceding the incarnation, and χωρὶς Xp. Ἴ. would imply the 
existence of the historical Jesus then; whereas here, not only the 
Messiah as such 15 referred to, but the personal Jesus as the Christ 
and the Saviour. 

ποτὲ ὄντες μακράν corresponds to the expressions ἀπηλλοτριω- 
μένοι, κιτιλ. μακράν and ἐγγύς, then, have reference both to the 
πολιτεία τοῦ “Io. with its διαθῆκαι, and to the ἐλπίς with God 
Himself. Accordingly in the following verses we have two points 


60 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [11. 14 


of view combined, viz. the reconciliation of the Gentiles to God, 
and their admission to the πολιτεία of Israel, namely, the true 
Israel—the Christian Church. 

The terms μακράν and ἐγγύς were suggested by Isa. lvii. 10, 
“Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is nigh.” There, 
indeed, as in Acts ii. 39, the words have a local meaning, and 
have no reference to the admission of Gentiles to the theocracy ; 
but they easily lend themselves to this conception, and, in fact, 
were frequently used by Rabbinic writers with reference to pro- 
selytes, who were said to be “ brought near.” Many passages may 
be seen in Schoettgen and Wetstein. One may be quoted. “A 
woman came to R. Eliezer contessing certain gross sins, and asked 
to be made a proselyte, saying, ‘ Rabbi, propinquam me fac’; on 
hearing her sin he rejected her. She went to R. Joshua, who re- 
ceived her. His disciples said, ‘R. Eliezer illam removit, tu vero 
eam propinquam facis ?’” 

ἐγγὺς γίνεσθαι, frequent in classical writers, but not found else- 
where in the N.T. 


The order ἐγενήθητε ἐγγύς is that of SAB, 17. Rec. has éyy. ἐγεν., with 
DGKLP._ Ellicott thinks the Rec. genuine, the order here adopted being 
due to a mistaken correction of the emphatic juxtaposition of μακράν and 
ἐγγύς. Harless is of the same opinion. But why should copyists correct 
this emphatic juxtaposition? It is just what would strike an ordinary reader. 
Looking closer, we see that the opposition is not merely between these two, 
but between ὄντες μακράν and ἐγενήθητε ἐγγύς, and that the verb is properly 
placed in the most emphatic position. 


ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ more particularly defines the instru- 
mentality. Itis not possible to draw any satisfactory distinction 
between this and διὰ τοῦ αἵ. 1. 7. 

14. αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἣ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, “ He Himself is our peace” ; 
He has not brought about peace by a mere external action or 
arrangement ; it is in His own person that He gives it. “Non 
modo pacificator nam 511 impensa pacem peperit et ipse vinculum 
est utrorumque,” Bengel. ‘The context shows that what is primarily 
intended is the union of Jews and Gentiles ; but as it was not this 
union of itself that was of importance, but the essential basis of 
it, as the union of both in one body of Christ, it is manifest that 
the idea of peace with God could not be absent from the mind of 
the apostle in writing ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν. Comp. ver. 17. 

Schoettgen quotes a Rabbinic writer who calls the Messiah 
“Peace,” in allusion to Isa. ix. 6. 

6 ποιήσας. ‘ Quippe qui.” 

τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν. Both, z.e. both Jews and Gentiles. There is 
no ellipsis (as of γένη, ἔθνη, or the like). It is simply an instance 
of the neuter being used of persons in a general sense; cf. Heb. 
Vil. 7, τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖται ; I Cor. i. 27, 28, 


11. 14] THE GENTILES NOW BROUGHT NIGH 61 


τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου... τὰ ἀσθενῆ (Opposed to ver. 26, of σοφοί). 
So in classical Greek, e.g. Xen. Anad. vil. 3. 11, τὰ φεύγοντα ἱκανοὶ 
ἐσόμεθα διώκειν. 

ἕν. Comp. Gal. ill. 28, πάντες ὑμεῖς ἕν ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 
Not, says Chrysostom, that He has brought us to that nobility of 
theirs, but both us and them to a greater; as if one should melt 
down a statue of silver and one of lead, and the two should 
come out gold. 

kai, exegetical=inasmuch as, He, τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ 
λύσας, ‘ brake down the partition wall of the fence.” 

μεσότοιχον is a rare word, found, besides the Fathers, only in 
Eratosth. ap. Athen. vil. 281 D (masc.), and Hesychius. The 
genitive has been variously explained, as of quality = “ the separating 
partition” (against which is the fact that this adjectival notion 
belongs to μεσότοιχον itself); or of possession, ‘the wall which 
belonged to the fence”; or better, of apposition, ‘‘the partition 
which consisted in the fence.” φραγμός means a fence, hedge, or 
enclosure, not a separation. 

It seems probable that the figure was suggested by the partition 
which separated the Court of the Gentiles from the temple proper, 
and on which there was an inscription threatening death to any 
alien who passed it. ‘That the Ephesian readers can hardly be 
supposed to be familiar with the arrangements of the temple, is no 
proof that these may not have been in the apostle’s mind. But 
it is worth noticing that it was an Ephesian, Trophimus, that 
St. Paul was charged with bringing into the temple. A more 
serious objection seems to be, that when the Epistle was written 
the wall referred to was still standing. But the apostle is not 
speaking of the literal wall, but using it as an illustration. Any 
reference to the vail which was rent at the time of the crucifixion 
would be out of harmony with the context. That vail did not 
separate Jews and Gentiles. 

λύσας is suitable to the figure ; cf. John ii. 19, λύσατε τὸν ναὸν 
τοῦτον. It is equally suitable to the following ἔχθραν, since λύειν 
ἔχθραν is of frequent occurrence in classical writers. 

Here it is questioned whether ἔχθραν is to be connected with 
the words preceding or those following, and if with the preceding, 
whether ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ is to be taken with λύσας or with 
katdépynoas. Another alternative will be mentioned presently. 
We have to choose, then, between the following renderings :— 

Having done away with the middle wall, namely, the enmity ; 
having in His flesh annulled the law. 

Having in His flesh done away with the middle wall, namely, 
the enmity, etc. 

Having done away with the middle wall, having in His flesh 
annulled the enmity, namely, the law, etc. 


62 THE EPISTLE LO OTHE ERE STAINS [II. 14 


The view which connects ἐν τῇ σαρκί αὐτοῦ with ἔχθραν as = 
the enmity in his flesh, whether ‘his flesh” be understood to mean 
humanity in general (Chrys.) or the Jews (cf. Rom. x1. 14), must 
be set aside as inconsistent with the absence of the article before 
ἐν τῇ σαρκί, ‘The first-mentioned interpretation gives an awkward 
isolation to ἔχθραν, and adds the harshness of making the specifica- 
tion of manner, ἐν τῇ o., precede the object and its verb. 

The third construction is objectionable, first, because the law 
cannot itseif be called ἔχθρα (the designation of it as δύναμις τῆς 
ἁμαρτίας, τ Cor. xv. 56, is not analogous) ; and, secondly, because 
the position of ἐν τῇ σ. αὐτοῦ would be inexplicable, coming, as it 
does on that supposition, between the two nouns in apposition, 
although it has no relation to either. Indeed, it may be added 
that κατάργησας is not a verb appropriate to ἔχθραν ; it does not 
properly mean to destroy, but “to make of none effect,” “to 
deprive of power”; of the faith of God, Rom. iii. 3; of the law, 
Rom. 111. 31 ; the promise, iv. 14; persons from the law, vii. 2, 6. 
It is, indeed, used of things coming to an end, as knowledge 
and prophecy, but coming to an end by being superseded. 

The second construction mentioned above seems to have the 
advantage of these two, although it must be admitted that it is not 
without difficulty. For the enmity was not the wall of partition. 
It was not the law only, although that was the ultimate cause, 
but the separation, religious, moral, and social, which forbade fellow- 
ship between Jew and Gentile. ‘This partition was broken down 
by the annulling of the law. 

V. Soden has proposed a view of the passage which, if admis- 
sible, would meet the difficulties. It is that τὴν ἔχθραν is the 
beginning of the participial clause, which, having been interrupted 
by the statement of the process by which the effect was produced, 
is taken up again in ver. 16, where ἔχθραν is repeated. If the text 
had run thus, τὴν ἔχθραν, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντ. ἐν doy. Katapynoas, 
ἀπέκτεινε, there would have been nothing harsh in the order of the 
words. As it is, the parenthesis is enlarged, as in the manner of 
this Epistle, 11. 1 and 4, 11 and 12, ii. © and 12, and the inter- 
rupted thought is resumed in ver. 16. The two participles, 
κατάργησας, ἀποκτείνας, in their relation to one another, correspond 
exactly with the two in ver. 14. Soden connects ἐν τῇ σ. αὐτοῦ 
with the following clause. The parenthetic digressions, however, 
with which Soden compares this, are not quite parallel. In each 
of them, while the train of thought is interrupted, it is easy to 
account for the interruption by the influence of some particular 
word; they are, in fact, instances of what Paley well calls St. 
Paul’s habit of “ going off at a word.” Thus in 11. 1 he goes off at 
ἁμαρτίαις, ἐν ais; in 11. 11 at ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί; in ill. 1 at ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν 
τῶν ἔθνων. 


11. 15] THE GENTILES NOW BROUGHT NIGH 63 


The verbal connexion is in each instance easy. But here 
there is no similar connexion between the words which precede 
the digression and τὸν νόμον, k.7.X. 

The ἔχθρα is obviously that of Jews and Gentiles. This natur- 
ally loomed much larger in the apostle’s eyes than it does in ours, 
or than it did in those of Chrysostom and his successors. With 
us as with them, the more pressing thought is of the enmity of 
both Jew and Gentile to God. So Oecumenius : μεσότοιχον 
φραγμοῦ φησι τὴν ἔχθραν τὴν πρὸς Θεόν, ἡμῶν τε καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων, ἥ ἥτις ἐκ 
τῶν ἡμετέρων παραπτωμάτων. And so Chrysostom interprets τὴν 
ἔχθραν ἐ εν Τῇ σαρκί as being the μεσότοιχοντ ῷ κοινὸν εἶναι διάφραγμα 
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ διατειχίζον ἡμᾶς, rejecting the interpretation which makes 
the law the ἔχθρα. But even though ἡ ἔχθρα is not=6 νόμος, it 
is the annulling of the law that removes the ἔχθρα, and the law is 
characterised in terms which exclude the natural law. Moreover, 
the reconciling of both to God is stated as a further object of the 
removal of the enmity and the creating of both into one new man. - 

τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν KaTdpynoas. τὸν ν. τῶν ἐντ. ἐν 
6. belong together; “the law of commandments expressed in 
decrees.” The law consisted of ἐντολαί, and the definite form in 
which these were expressed was that of δόγματα, authoritative 
decrees (“‘legem imperiosam,” Erasm.). This connexion does not 
require the article to be repeated after ἐντολῶν. For we might 
with propriety say ἐντολὴν διδόναι ἐν δόγματι, and therefore ἐντολὴ 
ev 6. may form a single conception. So Winer in his later editions. 
Compare τὸν ὑμῶν ζῆλον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, 2 Cor. vil. 7. In fact, τῶν 
evr. τῶν ἐν δ. would denote the ἐντολαί as a particular class, ‘‘ com- 
mandments, even those expressed in decrees.” 

Δόγμα in classical Greek means, first, an opinion or resolution. 
In the plural it is used of the “placita philosophorum,” whence 
the use of the word in Christian writers in the sense of ‘‘ dogma.” 
But it also means a decree (Xen. Demosth. Plato), and this is the 
meaning which alone it has in the N.T. We have ἐξῆλθε δόγμα 
παρὰ Καίσαρος, Luke τ τ: ; δόγματα Καίσαρος, Acts xvii. 7; τὰ ὃ. 
κεκριμένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστ., ib. xvi. 4. The word occurs also in 
Lachmann’s text, Heb. xi. 23, δι τοῦ βασιλέως. The remaining 
“passages are the present and Col. ii. 14. Chrysostom does not 
seem to have contemplated this meaning. He suggests that what 
is meant is either faith, δόγμα αὐτὴν καλῶν, for by faith alone 
He saved us, or the precept τὴν παραγγελίαν, as Christ said, 
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν. He is followed by Theophylact, Theodoret 
(δόγματα τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν διδασκαλίαν ἐκάλεσεν), and Oecumenius. 
Theodore Mops. also connects the word with κατάργησας, but 
interprets differently, understanding δόγματα of the facts and 
hopes of the Gospel, “dua τῶν ἰδίων δογμάτων ἵνα εἴπῃ, τῆς 
ἀναστάσεως, τῆς ἀφθαρσίας, τῆς ἀθανασίας" διγματα καλέσας ταῦτα ὡς 


64 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [11. 15 


ἐν πράγμασιν ὄντα, the Divine grace working in us so that we do 
not need commandments and precepts.” ‘This interpretation, as 
well as Chrysostom’s, would clearly require τοῖς δόγμασιν αὐτοῦ or 
the like. Against Chrysostom’s view, indeed, it is decisive that it 
was not by doctrines or precepts that Christ annulled the law. 
Theodore’s view avoids this error, but gives δόγμα an impossible 
sense. Of course, when once these commentators connected ἐν. 6, 
with the following, taking ἐν as instrumental, they were driven to 
some such interpretation. 

Harless also connects ἐν δ, with 1 katapynoas, thinking that the 
absence of the article forbids the connexion with ἐντολῶν. But 
his interpretation is that Christ annulled the law only in respect of 
δόγματα, comparing Cic. Pfz/, i. 7, “In maximis vero rebus, id est 
legibus, acta Caesaris dissolvi ferendum non puto,” and such phrases 
as ἐν τῇ πίστι ὠνείδισε (Arrian, Lx. iii. 30; Bernhardy, p. 212). 
St. Paul has already indicated by τῶν ἐντ. that he is not speaking 
of the law so far as it belonged to the covenants of promise, and 
now, to avoid all misconception, he adds ἐν δόγμασι. Olshausen 
follows Harless, who had, indeed, been preceded in this interpreta- 
tion by Crellius. But this would require the article before δόγ- 
μασιν. Moreover, while it is true that the law as σκιὰ τῶν μελλόν- 
τῶν OF aS παιδαγωγὺς εἰς Χριστόν was not annulled, it was superseded. 
Such a limitation of the statement as to the abolition of the Iaw 
would be out of place here, and would require more explicit state- 
ment, since it is not elsewhere referred to. ‘The Mosaic law as 
such, not merely in certain aspects of it, has come to an end in 
Christ. He is the “end of the law,” Rom. x. 4. Faith having 
come, we are no longer ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν (Gal. 11. 25). 

If ἐν 6. be connected with κατάργησας, then, considering the 
absence of the article, the only grammatical interpretation seems 
to be Hofmann’s, viz. that Christ deprived the O.T. law of validity, 
by putting an end to all precepts, ‘“Satzungen.” He compares 
the construction in 1 Cor. 11. 7, λαλοῦμεν σοφίαν Θεοῦ ἐν μυστηρίῳ, 
7.6. λαλοῦντες σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν μυστήριον. But surely the N.T. con- 
tains many specific precepts which may be properly called δόγματα. 
Comp. also τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Gal. vi. 2; ἔννομο: Χριστοῦ, 
1 Cor. ix. 21 ; and the parallel to the present passage in Col. ii. 14. 
As Meyer observes, the δόγματα of Christianity are the true ἀεὶ 
παρόντα δόγματα, Plato, Zheaeé p. τ 8 Ὁ. Had the intention 
been what Hofmann supposes, St. Paul would doubtless have 
added some qualification, such as ἐν δόγμασι δουλείας. νόμος here 
is not to be limited to the ceremonial law; there is nothing in the 
connexion to show such a limitation, which, on the contrary, 
would make the statement very weak. No reader would fail to 
see that, as Theodoret says, οὐκ ἀνεῖλε τὸ οὐ μοιχεύσεις, κ.τ.λ. 
The moral law retains its obligation, not, however, because the 


II. 16] THE GENTILES NOW BROUGHT NIGH 65 


Jewish law is only partially annulled, but because its obligation was 
independent of the law and universal (Rom. 11. 14). Ifa Moham- 
medan becomes a Christian, we do not say that the Koran retains 
its obligation for him in its moral part, although he still acknow- 
ledges the obligation of many moral precepts contained in it. 
The Christian now fulfils the moral law, not because of external 
precepts, but because conformity with it is the natural fruit of the 
Spirit. Hence the contrast between the expressions, “works of 
the law,” “fruits of the Spirit.” 

ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὑτῷ εἰς Eva καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. The neuter 
was used in ver. 14 to express the general characteristics of the 
two classes; but here, where the Jews and Gentiles are conceived 
as concrete persons, the masculine was necessary. 

καινόν is necessary because the one is neither Jew nor Greek. 
Both have put off their former religious condition, and have received 
the same new nature. Chrysostom says : opas οὔχι τὸν Ἕλληνα 
γενόμενον ᾿Ιουδαῖον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτον κἀκεῖνον εἰς ἑτέραν κατάστασιν 
ἥκοντας. οὐχ ἵνα τοῦτον ἕτερον ἐργάσηται τὸν νόμον κατήργησεν, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ. κιτιλ. On κτίζειν, cf. ver. 10. It is specially 
appropriate here with καινὸς ἄνθ. οὐκ εἶπε, Μεταβάλῃ, iva δείξῃ τὸ 
ἐνεργὲς τοῦ γενομένου, Says Chrysostom. 

ἐν αὑτῷ: Rec. has ἑαυτῷ, with 8° DG K L and most cursives, 
Chrys. Jerome. avrw is the reading of SA BP, 17. Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, and Tregelles write αὐτῷ, but Westcott and Hort 
αὑτῷ. The sense here is certainly reflexive. 

“Tn Himself.” Not δι ἑαυτοῦ, as Chrys., but, Christ is Him- 
self the principle and ground of the unity; “ne alibi quam in 
Christo unitatem quaerant,” Calv. Cf. Gal. i. 28, πάντες ὑμεῖς εἷς 
ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Chrysostom, indeed, gives another inter- 
pretation, as if it were only a development of the former. ‘ Fusing 
both this and that, he produced one, an admirable one, Himself 
having first become this ; which is a greater thing than the former 
creation. For this is the meaning of ἐν ἑαυτῴ, Himself first 
affording the type and pattern.” Oecumentius states the two inter- 
pretations as alternatives, explaining the first as od dv ἀγγέλων ἢ 
ἄλλων τινων δυναμέων. 

ποιῶν εἰρήνην, present participle, “ making peace,” 2.4. so that by 
this new creation He makes (not “made”) peace. The words 
explain αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν of ver. 14. The peace is, from 
the context, that between Jews and Gentiles; but as the basis of 
that is peace with God, the latter thought underlies the former, and 
to it the apostle now turns. 

16. kat ἀποκαταλλάξῃ. The καί is not the mere copula, but 
indicates a logical sequence, “‘and consequently reconcile both, 
now one body, to God by the Cross, having on it slain the enmity 
previously existing between them.” 


66 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [II. 17 


ἀποκαταλλάσσειν is found only here and Col. i. 20. It seems 
to be only an intensified form of the usual Greek word ἀλλάσσειν. 
ἀπό in composition frequently has this intensive meaning; cf. 
ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, ἀποκαραδοκεῖν, to await patiently ; so ἀποθαρρεῖν, ἀπο- 
θαυμάζειν, ἀποθεᾶσθαι, etc. In a few instances, indeed, it seems to 
be equivalent to re- and to mean “again,” as in ἀποδίδωμι, ἀπο- 
λαμβάνω, ἀποκαθίστημι, ἀποκατορθόω. In the first two of these the 
idea is rather to give or take what belongs of right to the receiver, 
as aod. χάριν, ὑπόσχεσιν. Here it is the idea of remotion from, 
that explains the meaning of the verb. In the other two examples 
also this local idea is involved 

In any case, as this use of ἀπο- is much less common than the 
intensive use, we are not justified in assuming it in a compound 
that does not elsewhere occur. 

ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι is interpreted by Chrysostom as referring to the 
human body of Christ. So Bengel: ‘in uno corpore cruci affixo.” 
But in that case we should expect ‘His body.” Nor is it easy to 
see why that should be designated ἕν σῶμα. The order of the 
words indicates the correct interpretation, ‘both now united in 
one body.” The ἕν σῶμα is the εἷς καινὸς ἄνθρωπος. So most 
commentators. It is not the Church, for it is only as reconciled 
that Jews and Greeks belong to the Church. But when reconciled 
they become the body of Christ, and so, the Church. 

διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ is joined by Soden with the following, αὑτῷ 
being read for αὐτῷ (so G, Vulg. and some Latin codices with 
other authorities). The connexion with the two notions, azo- 
κτείνας and ἔχθρα, gives it a subtle point. “Βγ His death He was 
slain; by death on the Cross, in which the ἔχθρα showed itself, 
He has overcome the ἔχθρα." We have a parallel in Col. i. 20, 
only that there, instead of the negative ἀποκτείνειν τὴν ἐ., we have 
the positive εἰρηνοποιεῖν ; also in connexion with διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ. 
ἐν αὑτῷ, then, as in 15%, echoes with emphasis the fundamental 
thought: “ He Himself is our peace.” If we read ἐν αὐτῷ, it 
could not be referred to σῶμα, because this σ. was just mentioned 
as the medium of reconciliation to God, whereas here it is the 
enmity between Jews and Gentiles that is in question, 

17. kat ἐλθὼν εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην. “And He came and 
preached good tidings of peace.” ‘The preceding verses showed 
how Christ secured peace; this, how He proclaimed it. This, 
therefore, is posterior, and hence cannot refer to His life on earth, 
as Harless, following Chrysostom, understands it. Bengel interprets 
the ‘coming and preaching,” as that of Christ personally after the 
resurrection, “‘veniens a morte, profectione ad inferos, resurrectione 
victor laetus ipse z//vo nuntiavit.” But it is muchbetter to understand 
the words of Christ preaching by His Spirit in the apostles and other 
messengers of His. Not that εὐηγγ. means “ caused to be preached ” 


II. 18] THE GENTILES NOW BROUGHT NIGH 67 


(as Harless objects), for what is thus done by Christ’s Spirit 15 
properly said to be done by Him; nor is ἐλθών superfluous, but, 
on the contrary, important as expressing the spiritual coming 
referred to in John xiv. 18, ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, and in Acts xxvi. 23, 
(Χριστὸς) πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ 
τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσι. 

ὑμῖν τοῖς μακρὰν καὶ εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς. The second εἰρήνην 
has preponderant authority in its favour, ὃ ABDGP, 17, Vulg. 
and other versions except Syr. Contra, K L, most cursives, Syr. 
The repetition is highly emphatic. 

The datives depend on εὐηγγελίσατο. τοῖς μακράν comes first, 
because it is these that are addressed, and are chiefly in view in 
the whole passage. This also agrees with the view that it is not 
Christ’s personal preaching that is intended, since that would 
have required τοῖς ἐγγύς to come first. The repetition of εἰρήνην 
excludes the interpretation of τοῖς ἐγγύς as in apposition with 
ὑμῖν, and so=the Jewish Christians in Ephesus. 

18. ὅτι δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν ot ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ 
Πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. “For through Him we both have our 
access (or introduction) in one Spirit unto the Father.” 

Proof of what precedes. The emphasis, therefore, is not on 
δι αὐτοῦ, but on ot dud. ἐν évi Πν. Since both have their προσ. 
in one Spirit to the Father, it follows that the same good tidings 
of peace have been brought to both by Him. ὅτι is “for,” not 
“that,” as if the verse contained the substance of the passage 
which has been already expressed in εἰρήνη. And it is not the 
common access as such that is in question, but the peace therein 
assured (between Jews and Gentiles). 

ἔχομεν. Compare Rom. v. 2, “dv οὗ καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν 
ἐσχήκαμεν . . . εἰς THY χάριν ταύτην ἐν ἧἣ ἐστήκαμεν. There, the 
mp. is into the present condition, and accordingly the perfect is 
suitable; here, it is the zp. to the Father, which is a present 
privilege. 

Προσαγωγή in classical writers is usually transitive, but is also 
found fairly frequently in an intransitive sense. 

The word is understood transitively here by Ellicott, Eadie, 
Meyer, after Chrysostom, οὐκ εἶπεν πρόσοδον ἀλλὰ προσαγωγήν, od 
γὰρ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν προσήλθομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ προσήχθημεν ; οἴ 
ι Pet. ii. 18, ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ Θεῷ, and it is supposed that 
there may be an allusion to the προσαγωγεύς at Oriental courts. 
Such an allusion would not be in harmony with the context. The 
ev πνεύματι is decidedly against the supposition that the apostle 
intended this ceremonial figure. Apart from this, the transitive 
sense is not suitable in 11. 12, where the word is used absolutely, 
and here also the intransitive agrees better with ἔχομεν, especially 
as the tense is present. προσαγωγή is something we possess. 


68 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [II. 19 


τὴν προσ. “Our access.” 

ἐν ἑνὶ Πνεύματι is understood by Anselm (and some moderns) 
of the human spirit (ὁμοθυμαδόν), against the clear reference to 
Father, Son, and Spirit, δι αὐτοῦ, ἐν ἑνὶ I., πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα. 

19. ἄρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι. “So then ye are 
no more strangers and sojourners.” ἄρα οὖν, ἃ favourite combina- 
tion with St. Paul, is not found in classical writers except in the 
interrogative form, dp οὖν. ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι, equivalent to ἀπηλλο- 
τριωμένοι, ver. 12. ἕένος is “foreigner” in general; πάροικος, a 
foreigner dwelling in a state, and not having rights of citizenship. 
In classical Greek, indeed, it seems to be found only in the 
sense of neighbour. Rost and Palm name the Pandects (without 
reference) as having the word in the sense “inquilinus.” In the 
Sept. it occurs eleven times as the rendering of 13, which is usually 


rendered προσήλυτος. None of these instances are in Leviticus or 
Numbers. Ten times it occurs as the rendering of win, “a foreign 


sojourner.” Of this it is the usual rendering. ‘The verb παροικέω 
occurs in Philo with the corresponding verbal meaning; see on 
Luke xxiv. 18. The noun seems to be equivalent to μέτοικος, 
which the Sept. have only once (Jer. xx. 3). In 1 Pet. 1. 11 it 
is used of Christians in the world, and so παροικία, 20. 1. τῇ. 

The meaning “ proselyte ” (Anselm, Whitby) is clearly excluded 
by the context, vv. 11 to 13; the other sense is pressed thus by 
Estius: ‘“‘accolas fuisse dicit Gentiles quatenus multi ex illis 
morabantur inter Judaeos ... non tamen iisdem legibus aut 
moribus aut religione utentes.” But such a reference to local 
settlement would be too trivial, and quite out of place in writing to 
Ephesians. Nor had the Gentiles in a figurative sense been 
sojourners in the commonwealth of Israel. ‘The word is simply 
used as contrasted with πολῖται. Bengel, followed by Harless, 
Eadie, a/., supposed πάροικοι here to be specially opposed to 
οἰκεῖοι, and ἕένοι to συμπολῖται, the metaphors being respectively 
from the house and the State. συμπ., says Harless, is sufficient 
to show in what sense ἕένος is used, so that πάροικος is not required 
as a nearer definition. Accordingly, he interprets the word here 
by Lev. xxii. 10, where the παρ. of the priest is mentioned, ze. 
“the guest in the priest’s house,” and thinks there may be even 
an allusion to that passage where the πάροικος of the priest is not 
allowed to eat of the holy things, but the οἰκογενεῖς αὐτοῦ are 
permitted. But this passage is quite insufficient to establish such 
an otherwise unknown sense of the Hebrew, and still less of the 
Greek word. The πάροικος of the priest is simply the π᾿ who 
dwells in his house. Nor would the figure be suitable, for the 
Gentiles could not be called guests in the house of God. 

ἀλλά ἐστε συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων Kal οἰκεῖοι τοῦ Θεοῦ.  “ But 


ἯΙ. 20] THE GENTILES NOW BROUGHT NIGH 69 


ye are fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God.” 

The second ἐστε is added on preponderant authority. It gives 

greater independence to the clause, an independence bettting 
its importance. Cf. Rom. viii. 15. 

Συμπολίτης is condemned by Phrynichus, and said by grammarians to be a 

word of later Greek (Josephus, Aelian). It seems strange that they over- 


looked its occurrence in Euripides (erac/. 826), now noted in the Lexicons. 
(In Aesch. Sept. c. Thet. 601, the true reading is ξὺν πολίταις.) 


τῶν ἁγίων. The clear reference to the πολιτεία of Israel shows 
decisively that the ἅγιοι are those who constitute the people of 
God. Such formerly had been the Jews, but now are all Christians. 
These are now the Israel of God, Gal. vi. 16, the true seed of 
Abraham, 70. i. 7, 16; Rom. iv. τό. 

The ἅγιοι, then, are not the Jews, nor specially the patriarchs or 
Old Testament saints, τῶν περὶ ᾿Αβραὰμα καὶ Μωῦσῆν καὶ Ἤλώαν, as 
Chrysostom says, nor the angels, as some other commentators. 
Nor, again, does the word mean “holy men of all times and 
places.” The word does not refer to personal holiness, but to 
membership of the spiritual commonwealth to which Jewish and 
Gentile Christians alike belong. Hence in ch. i. 1 the apostle 
addresses his readers as ἅγιοι. 

οἰκεῖοι Tod Θεοῦ, ““ belonging to the οἶκος or household of God,” 
the theocracy regarded as a family ; cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15, “ to conduct 
thyself ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ Cévros” ; Heb. x. 20; 
1 Pet. iv. 17. In Gal. vi. το we have the adjective as here, πρὸς 
τοῦς οἰκείους τῆς πιστέως, “those that are of the household of 
faith.” But as οἰκεῖος was common with such words as φιλοσοφίας, 
γεωγραφίας, etc., the reference to an οἶκος cannot be pressed there. 

Harless, while supposing the word to be specially contrasted 
with πάροικοι, remarks that the house is itself nothing but the 
community of the faithful, they being themselves the stones of 
which is built the house in which God dwells. They are οἰκεῖοι as 
ἐποικοδομηθέντες. But this would be to confound two figures 
founded on two different senses of οἶκος. It is, however, safe 
to say that the idea of οἶκος in one sense suggested to the apostle 
the kindred figure. ‘This is quite in accordance with St. Paul’s 
mobility of thought. 

20. ἐποικοδομηθέντες. The aorist refers to the time when they 
became Christians. The further building of which they were the 
subjects is referred to in ver. 22. The compound verb does 
not stand merely for the simple, but expresses “ superaedificati.” 
Comp. Col. ii. 7 and 1 Cor. ili. ro. As regards the use of the 
dative case, ἐπὶ τῷ θεμ., it is easy to see why the accusative is 
not used, as that would suggest the idea of motion towards; cf. 
1 Cor. iil. 12, Rom. xv. 20. It is less easy to give a reason for 
the preference of the dative to the genitive. It can hardly be 


70 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [11. 20 


maintained that the genitive expresses separable superposition 
(Ellicott), for in Luke iv. 29 we have the genitive used of the 
building of a city on a hill, ἐφ᾽ ob ἡ πόλις αὐτῶν φὠκοδόμητο. What 
that passage suggests is that éxé with the genitive expresses locality ; 
cf. Matt. x. 27, ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων ; xxi. 19, ἐπὶ τ. ὁδοῦ ; χχῖν. 30, 
ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τ. νεφελῶν ; hence it is used loosely of proximity, like 
our “on the river,” ἐπὶ τ. θαλάσσης, either ‘on the sea” or “on 
the seashore.” Yet the dative is similarly used, ἐπὶ Στρυμόνι 
(Herod. vii. 75). But, in general, the dative seems to imply more 
close and exact superposition. 

τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν. The genitive has been understood 
in four ways: first, as the genitive of possession, ‘“ the foundation 
on which the apostles and prophets have built” ; secondly, as the 
genitive auctoris, “the foundation they laid”; thirdly, as genitive 
of apposition, ‘the foundation which consists of the apostles and 
prophets”; fourthly, ‘the foundation on which they themselves 
have been built.” 

The first view is adopted by Anselm and Beza. Beza’s para- 
phrase is, “Supra Christum qui est apostolicae et propheticae 
structurae fundamentum.” But this interpretation mixes up the 
θεμέλιος and the ἀκρογων. Christ here is spoken of as the corner- 
stone, not the foundation. The same objection applies to the 
fourth view (Bucer, Alford). The second view is very generally 
adopted, and is supported by reference to 1 Cor. iii. 10. In 
Bengel’s words: ‘’Testimonium apostolorum et prophetarum 
substructum est fide credentium omnium.” Eadie _ interprets 
the foundation as eipyv7,—not so much Christ in person as Christ 
“our peace”; others more generally of the doctrine preached by 
the apostles and prophets. 

But nowhere is the gospel or any doctrine called the foundation 
of the Church. Moreover, it would be rather incongruous to 
assume as the foundation the system of teaching about Christ, 
and as the corner-stone, Christ’s person. If, in order to preserve 
the congruity of the figure, we identify “Christ preached” with 
“the preaching about Christ,” we identify the corner-stone with 
the foundation. Moreover, the building consists of persons. In 
rt Cor. ii. τὸ the figure is different; the building there is of 
doctrine, and naturally the foundation is doctrinal, ‘ Christ,” Ze. 
teaching about Christ. Still further, if this view be adopted, the 
point that is brought out is an incidental one, quite unessential to 
the connexion. ‘The important point was that the Gentiles were 
now along with Jewish believers members of one and the same 
theocracy, or, adopting the apostle’s figure,-were stones in the same 
building as the ἅγιοι. This would by no means be expressed by 
saying that they were built on a foundation laid by the apostles 
and prophets. 


ΤΙ: 90] THE GENTILES NOW BROUGHT NIGH 71 


Hence the interpretation of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, etc., is 
preferable, viz. that the apostles and prophets are themselves the 
foundation. It is true that elsewhere, with the exception of Rev. 
xxl. 14, Christ is the foundation, not the apostles ; but here Christ 
is the corner-stone, and the passage in Rev., although not precisely _ 
parallel, quite justifies our interpretation here. ‘The fact that the 
words there are taken from a vision is surely no objection to this. 
What seems a graver objection is that Christ seems thus to be 
named only as “primus inter pares.” The answer to this is that 
by Orientals the corner-stone was reckoned of greater importance 
than the foundation, and as connecting and concentrating on 
itself the weight of the building. Hence the expression in Isa. 
XXVili. 16, alluded to here, and 2 Pet. i1. 6; cf. Ps. cxviii. 22 ; Acts 
iv oa ; Matt. xxi, 42. 

Amongst recent commentators, Soden and Macpherson have 
adopted this view. ‘The latter further defends the reference to the 
apostles as the foundation by 2 Tim. 11. 19, ‘‘The firm founda- 
tion of God standeth,” “where undoubtedly the true elect of God 
are intended, who resist all temptations to unfaithfulness.” He 
adds, “In the building up a special rank is given to those who 
have been by immediate Divine calling and inspiration His wit- 
nesses unto all besides. ‘They, in fellowship with Christ, as form- 
ing the first layer, are called the foundation.” 

ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Showing, as Chry- 
sostom says, that it is Christ that holds the whole together ; for 
the corner-stone holds together both the walls and the founda- 
tions. ‘ Participium ὄντος initio commatis hujus, valde demonstrat 
in praesenti tempore,” Bengel. ἀκρογ. (λίθου understood, which is 
added in D* G). ‘The figure of the corner-stone as uniting the 
two walls is pressed by Theodoret as referring to the union of 
Jews and Gentiles; and many expositors have followed him. 
But this is not only to press the figure unduly, it is also unsuitable. 
For the point is that Jews and Gentiles now indifferently are built 
into the one building, not as if the Jews were one wall and the 
Gentiles another. 

αὐτοῦ is referred to θεμέλιος by Bengel, Soden, Macpherson. 
Bengel urges the absence of the article before Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. 
But, in fact, the article would imply the previous mention of 
Christ Jesus, and the sense would be “He Himself, even Christ 
Jesus”; see Fritzsche on Matt. ill. 4, where αὐτὸς δὲ ὃ Ἰωάννης 
and αὐτὸς ᾿Ιωάννης (as in D) are equally possible. Similarly John 
iv. 44, where the best texts have αὐτὸς Ἰησοῦς ; but the article (as 
inserted in R, 69, 44) is admissible. Also Luke xx. 42, αὐτὸς 
Δαυείδ. It is better to connect αὐτοῦ with Xp. ’I., since it is more 
to the purpose that Christ should be called the corner-stone of 
the building than of the foundation; and in this connexion the 


72 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [1 21 


emphatic pronoun is by no means superfluous, but fittingly dis- 
tinguishes Christ from the apostles and prophets. 

Who are these apostles and prophets? According to Chry- 
sostom they are the Old Testament prophets. The absence of 
the article before προφητῶν is against this, though not decisive, 
since the O.T. prophets and the apostles might possibly be regarded 
as constituting one class, though this would hardly be natural. The 
order of the words is also against it, and is not satisfactorily 
accounted for by the superior dignity of the apostles as having 
seen and heard Christ (Estius) Again, we have the analogy of 
iii. 5 and iv. 11, in both of which passages apostles and prophets 
are named together, and the prophets are New Testament prophets. 
These passages also disprove the suggestion that the apostles 
themselves are here called prophets. ‘The absence of the article 
before προφητῶν is natural, since the apostles and_ prophets 
formed one class as teachers of the Church. ‘The objection, that 
the prophets themselves were built on the foundation of the 
apostles (in whichever sense we take the genitive), loses all force 
when we consider, first, the high value which St. Paul sets on the 
gift of prophesying (1 Cor. xiv. 1 ff.) ; and, secondly, that with him 
“apostles” does not mean the Twelve only (see hereafter on 
iv. 11). Nor does there appear any reason here why the apostles 
should be called by this additionai title. 

21. ἐν ᾧ, 16. ἐν Xp. ᾿Ιησοῦ, not ἀκρογωνιαίῳ, as ‘Theophylact, 
Beza, ad. 

πᾶσα οἰκοδομή. Rec. πᾶσα 7 οἶκ. 


The reading is difficult. 

πᾶσα οἰκοδομή, ᾿ς BDGKL and most others, Chrys. (Comment.), 
Theodoret. 

πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή, 8° ACP, Arm., Chrys. (text ; but this is probably a 
copyist’s error or correction). Thus the balance of documentary evidence is 
strongly against the insertion of the article. Before deciding in favour of this 
reading, we must consider the comparative likelihood of the article being 
either omitted or inserted in error. Reiche, for instance, thinks it probable 
that copyists either neglected the article from lack of exact knowledge of 
Greek, ‘‘ quod in codicibus, qui articulo hic carent, saepe observatur,” or 
misinterpreted the words of the apostle as referring to individual churches, 
or (as Chrysostom) to the various parts of each edifice (Comment. Crit. tn 
Joc.). He thinks ἡ might more easily be omitted because of the homoeo- 
teleuton οἰκοδομή, and because in iv. 12, 16 the same word is without the 
article. But this is not a case of possible omission from homoeoteleuton ; if 
the scribe’s eye leaped from 7 to ἡ, οἰκοδομὴ would be the word omitted. 
Itacism would be a more plausible explanation. In fact, the accidental 
omission of the article in cases where it is grammatically required is extremely 
rare, even in single MSS. Even where homoeoteleuton or other sources of 
parablepsy might have been expected to cause omission in one or two MSS., 
we find no variation, as in Matt. xxv. 7, πᾶσαι al, or 6 before words beginning 
with ο, as πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος, Matt. xiii. 2; Luke vi. 19. Intentional variation in the 
addition or omission of the article is pretty frequent, especially with such 
words as Θεός, Χριστός, πίστις. That the variation is intentional appears 


11. 21] THE GENTILES NOW BROUGHT NIGH πῇ 


further from the grouping of the MSS. on each side, those to which the 
preference is given by recent critics being usually on the side of omission 
(not Rom. xv. 14 or Col. ili. 16). Nor does any reason appear for the 
intentional omission of the article in these cases. Where the article was 
omitted by the first scribe of x and D (Epp.), it is generally supplied by 
a corrector. A remarkable instance of (probably) erroneous omission is in 
Eph. vi. 16, τά before πεπυρωμένα (om. BD*G). On the other hand, a 
striking example of the article (probably) added erroneously after πᾶς occurs 
Rom. xv. 14, πάσης τῆς γνωσέως (NS BP, but om. ACD and most). In 
Matt. iii. 5, πᾶσα  "Iovdaia, 7 is om. by MIA and about twenty others, 
It is unnecessary before the proper name. In the present case, intentional 
addition is much more likely than intentional omission, since with the 
article the meaning is obvious, and without it there is a difficulty. Such 
a consideration as Reiche suggests does not seem sufficiently obtrusive to 
influence the scribes. 


The word οἰκοδομή belongs to later Greek, and is condemned by 
Phrynichus. It is used both for οἰκοδόμημα and οἰκοδόμησις. For 
the former see 1 Chron. xxix. 1; for the latter, Ezek. xvi. 61, 
XVil. 17, where it represents the Hebrew infinitive. In the N.T. 
it seems to have a sort of intermediate sense, like the English 
“building.” Thus in 1 Cor. ii. 9, “ye are God’s husbandry 
(γεώργιον), ye are God’s building (oixodopuy),” the word is not 
equivalent either to οἰκοδόμημα or to οἰκοδόμησις. As γεώργιον 
there is that which is cultivated by God, so οἶκ. is that which is 
builded up by God. In Matt. xxiv. 1 and Mark xiii. 1, 2, it is 
used of the buildings of the temple: ποταποὶ λίθοι καὶ ποταπαὶ 
oikodopal . . . βλέπεις ταύτας Tas μεγάλας οἰκοδομάς. Here it does 
not appear to mean “edifices,” for the temple could not properly 
be said to consist of several edifices. The separate λίθοι were 
not οἰκοδομαί, but every combination of them might be called an 
oik. Just so we might say, “what carvings,” ‘ what outlines,” or 
of a picture, “what harmonies.” The Vulgate has in Matt. xxiv. 1 
and Mk. xiii. 2, “aedificationes”; in Mk. xiii. 1, “structurae.” 
In 2 Cor. v. 1, “we have a building from God,” the word is nearly 
equivalent to “structure,” yet it is plain that οἰκοδόμημα would not 
have been so suitable. It is “ἃ house that God builds,” not ‘has 
built.” The English words “building, construction, structure ” 
all have a similar ambiguity. The most common meaning of the 
word in the N.T. is the figurative one, “ edification” ; that sense it 
has in this Ep., iv. 12, 16. The meaning in iy. 29 is analogous. 

Now let us turn to the text; and first, if the reading with the 
article is adopted, there is no obvious difficulty, “the whole 
building,” that is, the whole organised body of believers. When 
we look closer, indeed, we find something strange in the expres- 
sions. συναρμολογουμένη is present. It seems strange that the 
whole building should be spoken of thus as in course of being 
framed together. Still more unexpected is αὔξει. The whole 
building is growing into a temple. The ambiguity of the English 


᾿ς 


es 


74 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS (sie. 


“building” disguises this strangeness, which is apparent when we 
substitute “edifice.” ‘The whole edifice is growing into a temple.” 
The words, ‘the whole building or edifice,” express the conception 
of a thing completed. If the reading were well established, we 
might explain this as due to a want of precision in the metaphor ; 
but, as we have seen, this reading is not so well supported as the 
other, to which we now turn. 

Many expositors, including Eadie, Ellicott (more doubtfully), 
Barry, Moule, Meyrick, not Findlay, Macpherson, nor the Revisers, 
hold that πᾶσα οἰκοδομή may be rendered as if it were πᾶσα ἡ oik., 
and they refer especially to Luke iv. 13, πάντα πειρασμόν: Acts 
il. 36, πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ: vil. 22, πᾶσα σοφία Αἰγυπτίων : Homer, 
74. xxiv. 407, πᾶσαν ἀληθείην. None of these passages bear out 
the assertion. πάντα πειρασμόν is not ‘all the temptation,” but 
“every temptation,” as RV., ze. ‘every form of temptation.” See 
on Luke iv. 12. So in Acts vii. 22, although the English version 
sufficiently expresses the sense, what is meant is not the totality 
of the wisdom of Egypt, but the wisdom in all its branches. In 
Hom. 7. xxiv. 407, dye δή μοι πᾶσαν ἀληθείην κατάλεξον, the 
meaning clearly is: ‘Come, tell me the exact truth, nothing but 
the truth.” The article here would not be appropriate. Similarly 
in Josephus, Anzig. iv. 5. 1, ποταμὸς διὰ πάσης ἐρήμου ῥέων 15 a 
river flowing through a country which is all desert. 

οἶκος ᾿Ισραήλ in Acts i. 36 15 an expression borrowed from 
the O.T., where it occurs with πᾶς in Jer. ix. 26, Ezek. xxxvi. Io, 
XXXVI. 11, and is treated as a proper name, as it is without πᾶς in 
XXXIX. 12, 22, 23, etc. So, too, οἶκος Κυρίου. So in classical writers 
yn, for example, is treated as a proper name. ‘The general rule is 
that a word cannot be used with πᾶς without the article when the 
sense is ‘‘the whole,” unless it is such that without πᾶς it can be 
employed definitely, or does not require the article to give it 
definiteness. A somewhat similar rule holds good in English, 
where we can say, not only “all England,” but “all town,” “all 
school,” “all college,” ‘all parliament”; but by no means “all 
house.” It is, no doubt, immemorial use that has enabled such 
words to dispense with the article, when the thing meant, though 
only one of many, is marked out by its familiarity. We can also say 
“all night, “all day,” as the Greeks did. Nor does it appear that 
π. oik. would, to a reader of St. Paul’s time, be any more likely to 
suggest “the whole building” than would “all building” to an 
English reader. We must therefore acquiesce in some such 
rendering as “every building,” or ‘each several building,” RV., 
modified, perhaps, as will be presently mentioned. 

But what is meant by ‘every building”? MHardly “every 
church” ; for to speak of the several local churches, or of the Jews 
and Gentiles as so many several buildings, would not be in accord- 


II. 22] THE GENTILES NOW BROUGHT NIGH 78 


ance with the figure in ver. 20, or with St. Paul’s language else- 
where. Moreover, he has just used a forcible figure to express 
the unity of the whole Church, and it would be strange if he now 
weakened it by speaking of several buildings. The individual 
believer, again, is spoken of in 1 Cor. ΠΙ. 16 as ναὸς Θεοῦ; but there 
the figure is explained by the context, as founded on the conception 
of the indwelling of the Spirit. This is very different from calling 
each believer an οἰκοδομή. The passages above referred to in 
Matthew and Mark suggest that what is intended is “everything that 
from time to time is builded in,” “every constituent element of the 
building.” The English words “all the building” would admit of 
being understood in this way, but are ambiguous. The image is that 
of an extensive pile of buildings in process of construction at differ- 
ent points on a common plan. The several parts are adjusted to 
each other so as to preserve the unity of design. So Findlay, who 
remarks that an author of the second century, writing in the 
interests of Catholic unity, would scarcely have omitted the article. 

Hofmann compares πάσης κτίσεως, Col. 1. 15, which he says 
does not mean “the whole creation,” nor “every creature,” but 
“all that is created,” as πᾶσα σοφία καὶ φρόνησις in i. 8 is “all 
that is wisdom”; πᾶν θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, Col. iv. 12, “all God’s 
will,” to which we may add πᾶσα γραφή, 2 Tim. iii. 16; 7. 
ἀναστροφή, τ Pet. 1. 15. Soden’s view is similar. Comp. iv. 16. 

συναρμολογουμένη, “‘fitly joined together,” present participle, 
because this harmonious framing together is a process still going on. 
The compound verb occurs only here and iv. 16. The simple 
verb ἁρμολογέω seems to be equally rare. The classical word is 
συναρμόζω. None of these is found in the Sept. 

αὔξει, “‘ groweth,” the present, as in the former word, indicating 
the perpetual growth. ‘The verb is neither rare nor poetical, as is 
sometimes stated ; on the contrary, it is more frequent than αὐξάνω 
in the best Attic prose (Thuc. Xen. Plato), but the use of the 
active in an intransitive sense is later (Aristot. Polyb. Diod.). It 
occurs also in Col. 11. 19. 

εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ev Κυρίῳ. “Unto a holy temple (or sanctuary) in 
the Lord.” Κύριος, according to the Pauline usage, must be 
Christ. ἐν K. seems best connected with ἅγιος, “holy in the 
Lord” ; to join it with αὔξει alone would be a tautology. 

22. ἐν ᾧ takes up the ἐν o of ver. 21; cf. ch. i. 11 and 12. 

καὶ ὑμεῖς, “ye also”; cf. ver. 13. 

συνοικοδομεῖσθε, NOt imperative, as Calvin: ‘ Ephesios hortatur 
ut crescant in fide Christi magis et magis postquam in ea semel 
fuerunt fundati,” but indicative, as is proved by vz. 19, 20, in which 
the apostle describes what the readers are, not what they ought to 
be. Note the present tense, because the building is still going on; 
cf. τ Pet. 11. 5, ‘“‘are being builded in together,” 24. together with 


76 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [111.1 


the others; συν- as in συμπολῖται. The πᾶσα before otk. looks 
forward to this καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικ., and this is a fitting conclusion to 
the paragraph which commenced with “‘ye are no more strangers 
and foreigners.” Meyer and Ellicott understand the συν- differ- 
ently, viz. as referring to the putting together the single parts of 
the building; Meyer quoting Philo, De Proem. ὃ 20, p. 928 E 
(ed. Mang. ii. p. 427), οἰκίαν εὖ συνῳκοδομημένην καὶ συνηρμοσμένην. 
But the whole context favours the interpretation “you together 
with others,” and there is no reason to give any other sense to the 
συν- in συναρμολογουμένη. 

εἰς κατοικητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ. κατοικητήριον Only in Rey. xviii. 2 in 
N.T., but freq. in the Sept. ‘Into a habitation of God,” the same 
which was expressed by ναὸς ἅγιος, only further specifying the 
essential nature of this ναός. Harless, who reads πᾶσα ἡ oix., sup- 
poses κατοικ. here to be used of each individual Christian in whom 
God dwells, the whole forming a ναὸς ἅγιος. Griesbach places ἐν ᾧ 
Kal ὑμεῖς συνοικ. In a parenthesis, which is awkward and unnecessary. 

ἐν πνεύματι, “in the Spirit.” It is interpreted by Chrysostom 
as = spiritually, οἶκος πνευματικός, and so Theophyl. Oecum. 
Olshausen also thinks there is a glance at the ναὸς χειροποιητός. 
But there is no suggestion of this in the context ; and as the whole 
is so distinctly figurative, it would be worse than superfluous to add 
this definition. Moreover, it does not appear that ἐν πνεύματι 
could be used with a substantive as = spiritual, except so far as the 
substantive involves a verbal notion, as περιτομὴ ev mv. -- τὸ περι- 
τέμνεσθαι ἐν πν., δέσμιος ἐν Χριστῷ = δεδεμένος ev Xp. 

But ἐν here is not merely instrumental, as 1{- διά, The Spirit 
is not the means or instrument only, but the medium by virtue of 
which God dwells in the Church. The ἐν refers to the act of 
κατοίκησις. He by or in His Spirit dwells in this temple. The 
article is not required, as πνεῦμα is frequently treated as a proper 
name where no ambiguity is caused thereby. 

III. 1-7. This truth, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs with the 

ews, was hidden from former generations, but has now been revealed 
to the apostles and prophets ; and unworthy though I am, yet to me 
has been given the privilege of making it known, and of preaching 
Christ to the Gentiles. 

1. τούτου χάριν ἐγὼ Παῦλος 6 δέσμιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὑπὲρ 
ὑμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν. (Tischendorf omits Ἰησοῦ, with 8* D*G.) “For 
this reason, I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you 
Gentiles.” ‘For this reason,” “hujus rei gratia,” Vulg., z.¢., as 
Theodoret says, “ Knowing well both what ye were and how ye 
were called and on what conditions, I pray God to establish you in 
the faith.” 

Chrysostom supplies εἰμ, I am the prisoner of Christ Jesus, 
etc. So the Peshitto and many moderns, including Beza, Meyer, 


111. 2] PAUL THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES 77 


Macpherson, “in order that-y@,.may be built up to the habitation 
of God—in this behoof,*that your Christian development may 
advance to that goal.” But this is to give too great prominence to 
the assertion of his imprisonment, as if it were a main point in the 
discourse, instead of being incidental. Besides, we should expect 
in that case δέσμιος without the article. St. Paul was not likely 
thus to designate himself as “the prisoner of Christ Jesus,” even 
with the addition ‘‘for you Gentiles.” The notoriety of the fact 
does not explain this. Moreover, this view makes τούτου χάριν 
and ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν rather tautologous. The analogy of ch. iv. 1 is in 
favour of taking 6 6. in apposition with ἐγὼ Παῦλος. 

Calvin’s “legatione fungor” is a rendering of πρεσβεύω, the 
reading of D (from vi. 20). Three cursives add κεκαύχημαι. 

Origen (Ca/ena) supposes a solecism; that, in fact, what St. Paul 
ought to have written was τ᾿ xap. . . . ἐγνώρισα τὸ pot. Jerome 
also, following Origen, declares that after diligent search he could 
not find the continuation of the sense. But the true key was given 
by Theodore Mops., followed by Theodoret, viz. that vv. 2-13 is a 
parenthesis. ταῦτα πάντα ἐν μέσῳ τεθεικὼς ἀναλαμβάνει τὸν περὶ 
προσευχῆς λόγον, Theodoret. ‘The apostle having described him- 
self as a prisoner for the Gentiles, is quite characteristically drawn 
off into a digression on the grace granted to him in connexion with 
this ministry to the Gentiles. Oecumenius regards the sentence as 
resumed in ver. 8 with the change of the nominative to the dative, 
a change not without parallels, as he observes, in Thucydides and 
Demosthenes. On that view τούτου χάριν would mean “for this 
purpose,” as in Tit. 1. 5. But then 6 δέσμιος would have no point, 
and, besides, ver. 8 is closely connected with 6 and 7. It is much 
more satisfactory to assume, with Theodore and Theodoret, that the 
sense is resumed with the same words, τούτου χάριν, in ver. 14. 
The supposition of a resumption in ch. iv. 1, adopted in the AV., 
rests apparently only on the repetition of ὃ δέσμιος, and unneces- 
sarily lengthens the parenthesis. 

“The prisoner of Christ Jesus,” so he calls himself in 2 Tim. 
i. 8 and Philem. 9, and in this Ep. iv. 1, “prisoner in the Lord.” 
He looks on his imprisonment, not merely as suffered in the service 
of the Lord, but as part of the lot assigned to him by Christ, so 
that he was Christ’s prisoner. Somewhat similarly in ch. vi. 20, 
ὑπὲρ ov πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει. 

“In behalf of you Gentiles.” Since it was his preaching the 
free admission of the Gentiles that led to his persecution at the 
hands of the Jews and to his present imprisonment, Acts xxi. 21, 
28, ΧΧΙΙ. 22. 

2. εἴγε ἠκούσατε τὴν οἰκονομίαν. “If, indeed, ye have heard of 
the dispensation.” ‘This seems decisive against the supposition 
that the Epistle was addressed to a Church which had been 


78 ‘THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [111. 2 


personally instructed by the writer. The utmost force that can 
be claimed for εἴγε is that, in Hermann’s words, it is used “de re 
quae jure sumpta creditur,” “if, as I take for granted,” being less 
hypothetical than εἴπερ. According to Lightfoot on Gal. iii. 4, this 
rule requires modification when applied to the N.T., where εἴγε is 
less directly affirmative than εἴπερ. 

Eadie says it is “undeniable” that εἴγε is used in the N.T. of 
things that are certain, quoting iv. 21 and Col. i. 22. The former 
passage is in the same case with the present; in the latter, hope 
only is expressed, not certainty. ‘The only other places where εἴγε 
occurs in the N.T. are Gal. iil. 4 and in the Received Text 2 Cor. 
v. 3 (etree, BD). It is found also in Rom. v. 6 in B. But 
allowing that the particle implies certainty as strongly as Her- 
mann’s rule asserts, it could not be used of a fact in the writer’s 
own experience. A preacher addressing a strange congregation 
might say “1 am sure,” or even “I know that you have been 
taught so and so,” but no preacher addressing those whom he 
himself had taught would ordinarily express himself in this way.! 

It is said, indeed, that this argument proves too much, since 
“what was known of Paul in the Ephesian Church would practi- 
cally be known of him throughout the missions of Asia” (Moule). 
But this is just the kind of case in which the particle may be 
properly used, viz. where the writer may be “practically” certain, 
but doubt is conceivable. Besides, the details which follow might 
be but imperfectly known to those who had not heard them from 
St. Paul’s own lips. And again, would he, in writing to the 
Ephesians, refer them to what he has just now written, that they 
may appreciate his knowledge in the mystery of Christ? Had 
they not had much more full proof of this during his long ministry? 
Every other attempt to evade this conclusion is equally unsuc- 
cessful. Thus ἠκούσατε has been rendered “ intellexistis ” (Anselm, 
Grotius), a meaning which the verb can have only when “ hearing ” 
is included; or, again, “hearing” the Epistle read (alluding to earlier 
passages in this Epistle); but cf. ἀναγινώσκοντες, ver. 4. Calvin 
says: ‘Credibile est, quum ageret Ephesi, eum tacuisse de his 
rebus.” Ellicott reasons in a circle, “There could be no real 
doubt ; ‘neque enim ignorare quod hic dicitur poterant Ephesii 
quibus Paulus ipse evangelium plusquam biennio praedicaverat,’ 
Estius. . . . No argument, then, can be fairly deduced,” etc. He 
supposes the apostle to convey the hope that his words had not 
been forgotten. Similarly Eadie, Alford, Macpherson, Meyer, 
(contra, W. Schmidt in last ed. of Meyer). But the words are not 
“if ye remember,” or ““if ye know”; but “at ye have heard) -aamo 
that, if written to the Ephesians, would be = “if I told you.” 


1On εἴγε and εἴπερ compare Sanday and Headlam, Comm. on Romans, 
lii, 30, with the quotation there from Monro’s Homeric Grammar. 


111. 8] PAUL THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES 79 


τὴν οἰκονομίαν τῆς χάριτος Tod Θεοῦ τῆς δοθείσης μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς. 
“The dispensation of the grace of God, the grace given me to you- 
ward.” 

As the explanation which follows is “that by revelation,” 
etc., it is best to understand τ. χάριτος as the genitive of the object, 
viz. the dispensation or plan or arrangement (namely, God’s 
arrangement) with respect to the grace,” etc. Chrysostom, 
followed by Oecum., takes the genitive as that of the subject. 
oik. Xap. τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν φησίν, ὅτι οὐ Tapa ἀνθρώπου ἔμαθεν, ἀλλ᾽ 
οὕτως ὠκονόμησεν ἣ χάρις ὥστε μοι ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, Oec. 
But this does not agree so well with the following words, which 
define the χάρις as ἡ δοθεῖσα εἰς ὑμᾶς. Alford, understanding the 
genitive as objective, takes oik. as=‘“‘munus dispensandi.” But 
it is not easy to see in what sense St. Paul could dispense the 
grace given to him. Many commentators suppose δοθείσης to be 
attracted into the genitive by χάριτος, either understanding that it 
is in and with the grace that the οἰκ. is entrusted to him (for which 
reason the participle has the case of y., v. Soden), or taking τ. oix. 
τ. xap. as=the gospel dispensation. But, while St. Paul might 
speak of the gospel dispensation as entrusted to him (οἰκονομίαν 
πεπίστευμαι, τ Cor. ix. 17), he could hardly speak of it as ‘given 
to him.” Nor does this interpretation agree with the circum- 
stance that the following words take the form of an explanation. 
The explanation of otx., as the apostolic office or stewardship, is 
also not consistent with the explanation, in which it is the act of 
God that is spoken of, not any conduct of the apostle. It is 
tempting to suppose, with some expositors, that the writer, in 
using the word οἰκονομία, has in his mind the building just re- 
ferred to. But although οἶκος might suggest the idea of an 
οἰκονόμος, οἰκοδομή and οἰκητήριον do not; and the figurative use 
of οἰκονομία was so common, that if the apostle had intended such 
an allusion, he would have made it more distinct. 

8. ὅτι κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν ἐγωρίσθη μοι TO μυστήριον. ‘That it 
was by way of revelation that the mystery was made known to 
me.” Explanation of ver. 2; hence the emphasis is on κατὰ ἀπ., 
which is not really different from δι ἀποκαλύψεως, Gal. 1. 12. In 
the latter passage, κατά could not have been used on account of 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ following. 

ἐγνωρίσθη is the reading of SABC D*GP, Vulg. Boh. Arm., 
Chrys. The Rec. has ἐγνώρισε, with D° KL, Theoph. Occ. 
For τὸ μυστήριον see on ch. i. ὃ. Here, not the ‘‘ mystery” of 
redemption in general is meant, but the particular ‘‘ mystery” of 
the inclusion of the heathen, for it is thus explained in ver. 6. 

καθὼς προέγραψα ἐν ὀλίγῳ: ‘As I have just written in brief.” 
mpo- is local, not temporal (cf. Gal. iii. 1, προεγράφη), and the 
reference is to the present Epistle, not to an earlier one, as supposed 


80 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [III. 4 


by Chrysostom, Calvin, αὐ, contrary to the present participle 
ἀναγινώσκοντες. Theodoret and Theophylact have the right view. 
Comp. 1 Cor. v. 9, €ypawa ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ: and 1 Pet. v. 12, 
ἔγραψα dv ὀλίγων. The reference is doubtless to the whole pre- 
ceding exposition about the Gentiles. 

ἐν ὀλίγῳ, equivalent to ἐν βραχεῖ, used by Demosthenes. 
Theodoret, indeed, and some moderns connect this with the zpo- 
in προέγραψα, as if it meant “paulo ante,” which would be πρὸ 
ὀλίγου. ἐν 6d. in a temporal sense would mean, “in a short 
time” (Acts xxvi. 28). Wetstein correctly, “ pauca tantum attigi 
cum multa dici possent.” Oecumenius gives a peculiar turn, οὐκ 
ἔγραψεν ὅσα ἐχρῆν GAN ὅσα ἐχώρουν νοεῖν, as if the following 
πρὸς ὅ were=“ prout,” which would make ἀναγινώσκοντες un- 
meaning, 

4. πρὸς 6 is, “according to which, or looking to which,” namely, 
to what I have said. Comp. “ πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν 2 Cor. v. 10; 
πρὸς τὴν ἀληθείαν τοῦ ebayy., Gal. ii. 14; πρὸς τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ, 
Luke xi. 47. But the usage is quite classical. 

ἀναγινώσκοντες, present, because it is ‘‘ while reading,” or “as 
ye read.” 

νοῆσαι. Where it is indifferent whether the aorist or present 
infinitive is used, the aorist is more frequent (Winer, § 44. 7), 
especially after such verbs as δύναμαι, θέλω, etc. Hort thinks this 
avay. refers to reading the O.T. prophecies, comparing Matt. xxiv. 
15. But there the passage “read” is distinctly specified, and 
although in Mark xiii. 14 Daniel is not named, he is quoted. 

τὴν σύνεσίν pou ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ‘‘ My understanding 
in the mystery of Christ.” The article is not required before ἐν 
τῷ μ., because συνιέναι ἐν is a frequent expression (Josh. i. 7; 
2 Chron. xxxiv. 12). 

μυστ. τοῦ Xp. We have the same expression in Col. iv. 3, 
where it clearly means the doctrine of the free admission of the 
Gentiles (80 ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι). It is the same here, as explained in 
ver. 6. Similarly, in Col. 1. 27 we have τοῦ μ. τούτου 6 ἐστιν Χριστὸς 
ἐν ὑμῖν. That passage has been used (by Alford, Ellicott, Meyer) 
to prove that the genitive here is one of apposition or identity ; 
but it fails in this, since there it is not Χριστός, but Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, 
that constitutes the μ. It is better, therefore, to understand “the 
mystery (or doctrine) relating to the Christ”; the genitive being 
that of the object. 

Critics who question the genuineness of the Epistle regard this 
verse as the expression of a boastfulness not in accordance with 
the dignity of an apostle, and only a clumsy imitation of 2 Cor. 
xi. 5, 6, where St. Paul is merely claiming for himself that in which 
his opponents claim to surpass him. But there is no self-laudation 
in this assertion of σύνεσις (see, on the contrary, ver. 8); nor even 


III. 5] PAUL THE APOSTLE OF.THE GENTILES SI 


as high a claim to exceptional knowledge as is involved in xara 
ἀποκάλυψιν, which it only serves to illustrate. Is it not quite 
natural that in writing to Churches where he was not personally 
known, and where there were teachers whose teaching was of a 
corrupt and paganising tendency (v. 11-14), and threatened to 
cause a schism between the Jewish and the Gentile members of 
the Church, the apostle, who was, in fact, combating these errors, 
and expounding the true nature of the privileges to which the 
Gentiles were admitted, should remind them in some such way 
that the subject was one on which he could speak with authority, 
and thus guard against objections which might possibly be urged 
by these unsound teachers? From this point of view it will be 
seen that this indirect and delicate way of meeting possible opposi- 
tion is thoroughly Pauline. On the other hand, a writer who 
merely assumed the name of Paul, especially one of such power as 
the writer of this Epistle, would hardly put into his mouth an 
expression of such seeming self-complacency, without any hint of 
opposition. Still less would such a writer forthwith add so strik- 
ing an expression of self-depreciation as is contained in ver. 8. 

5. ὃ ἑτέραις γενεαῖς οὐκ ἐγνωρίσθη τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 
“Which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men.” 
ἐν, which in the Received Text precedes ἑτέραις, rests on slight 
authority, but it expresses the right construction of τ. γεν. Meyer, 
in his earlier editions, adopted the view that the meaning was “to 
other generations,” τοῖς υἱοῖς, κιτ.λ., being epexegetical. (So also 
v. Soden.) But the usual interpretation is simpler, and corre- 
sponds better with the antithetical νῦν. For γενεά in this sense, cf. 
Acts xiv. 16, ἐν ταῖς παρῳχημέναις y.; and for the dative of time, 
11. 12, ἑτέραις, 7.6. other than the present. 

“The sons of men,” an expression frequent in the O.T. and 
simply = “men.” Comp. Mark ili. 28 (the only N.T. parallel) 
with Matt. xii. 31. It is needless, therefore, to adopt Bengel’s 
remark, “‘latissima appellatio, causam exprimens ignorantiae, ortum 
naturalem cul opponitur Spiritus.” Bengel, indeed, thinks that the 
prophets are especially referred to, because Ezekiel, who writes 
largely of the temple, as St. Paul does here, calls himself the son 
of man; but this is peculiar to him. It seems equally erroneous 
to find in the words a marked contrast with “ His holy apostles,” 
namely, because these were Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι (2 Pet. i. 21) (Ellicott). 
This is far-fetched. The apostles and prophets were not the less 
sons of men; and we might, with as much reason, follow Jerome, 
who would exclude the O.T. patriarchs and prophets because they 
were “sons of God.” 

ὡς νῦν ἀπεκαλύφθη τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ Kal προφήταις ἐν 
Πνεύματι. “As it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and 
prophets in the Spirit.” 

6 


82 THE EPISTLE TO ΤῊ EPHESIANS [III. 5 


ὡς is comparative, with such clearness as now. οὕτως. ἀκριβῶς 
οὐκ ἤδεισαν οἱ παλαιοὶ τὸ μυστήριον, Theoph.; “ fuit illis hoc mys- 
terium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum,” Beza. 

ἀπεκαλύφθη, not now ἐγνωρίσθη, because the special manner in 
which the knowledge was given is to be brought out. 

“His holy apostles.” How can the writer, if himself an 
apostle, use such an expression? Some critics answer unhesitat- 
ingly that it is incredible that an apostle should do so, and that 
the expression betrays the view which belonged to a later age. 
Baur thinks the ἁγίοις an oversight. And the writer who was so 
unskilful as to be guilty of this palpable oversight, is so mindful 
of his assumed character that in the same breath he says, ἐμοὶ τῷ 
ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων. The difficulty seems to arise from the 
use of the word “holy,” and the corresponding words in other 
modern languages, to express the personal character of “holiness.” 
But ἅγιος is used of any thing that is set apart for a sacred pur- 
pose. So we have “holy prophets,” Luke i. 70; Acts iii. 21. All 
Christians are by their calling ἅγιοι, and St. Paul frequently uses 
the word where he himself is included (e.g. 1 Cor. vi. 2 and Col. 
i. 26). When he calls all believers ἅγιοι, what delicacy should 
prevent him from calling the apostles by the same word? A 
clergyman is not expected to be prevented, by a feeling of delicacy, 
from speaking of his “reverend brethren,” or a bishop of his “right 
reverend brethren.” 

Lachmann and Tregelles place a comma after ἁγίοις, the follow- 
ing words being in apposition: ‘to the saints, His apostles and 
prophets,” or rather “‘apostles and prophets of His.” But such 
a separation of the adjective from the following substantive is 
harsh, although it must be admitted that it is suggested by the 
parallel in Col. i. 26. 

A more considerable difficulty seems to arise from the state- 
ment that the mystery of the free admission of the Gentiles had 
been revealed to ‘“‘the apostles and prophets,” viz. as a body. For 
this is precisely the special doctrine which St. Paul seems else- 
where, and here in ver. 3, to claim as his own, and which, at least 
at first, was not accepted by the other apostles (Gal. i), In ver. 
8, also, this is recognised as the distinctive characteristic of St. 
Paul’s apostleship. For this reason Reuss makes the suggestion 
that the second half of ver. 5 is a gloss. In favour of this sug- 
gestion, it may also be observed that αὐτοῦ has no expressed 
antecedent, unless, indeed, in opposition to most expositors, we 
take it to be Χριστοῦ. In the parallel in Col. i. 26, τοῖς ἁγίοις 
αὐτοῦ, the antecedent Θεοῦ occurs just before. But the authority 
of the MSS. is too strong for this suggestion to be accepted. Β, 
indeed, omits ἀποστόλοις (with ps. Ambr.), while DG place the 
word after αὐτοῦ. 


ἘΠ 6] PAUL THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES 83 


The difficulty, however, is met by the consideration that, not- 
withstanding the doubts which the other apostles at first enter- 
tained, they afterwards fully accepted the doctrine as taught by 
St. Paul, Acts xv., Gal. 11. 7 ff., and that long before the present 
Epistle was written. The “prophets” are manifestly Christian 
prophets. ἐν πνεύματι must be joined with the verb, not with zpo- 
φήταις, to which it would be a superfluous addition, or ἁγίοις, or 
the following εἶναι. 

6. εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμα. . . (namely) “that 
the Gentiles are fellow-heirs (or joint possessors) and fellow-mem- 
bers of the body.” Epexegetical; stating, not the purpose, but 
the content of the μυστήριον. The “should be” of AV. is not 
grammatically tenable. συγκληρονόμα, fellow-heirs, not with Christ, 
as in Rom. viii. 17 (and Jerome here), for it is “in Christ,” but 
with the believing Jews. The word συγκληρονόμος is found four 
times in the N.T. and once in Philo, but not elsewhere. σύσσωμα, 
incorporated with them into the body of which Christ is the Head. 
The word is not found elsewhere (except in the Fathers), and is 
supposed to have been perhaps formed by St. Paul. But as 
Aristotle has the compound συσσωματοποιεῖν (De Mundo, iv. 30), 
it is more probable that the adjective was in use. 

καὶ συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, 


The Received Text has αὐτοῦ after ἐπαγγ., with D’’GKL, a/.; but the 
word is absent from NABCD*P 17, a/Z. Χριστῷ of the Text Rec. rests on 
nearly the same MS. authority, with the addition of D; while Χριστῷ 
Ἰησοῦ has the authority of SA BCP 17. 


“And joint-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.” The 
accumulation of epithets is due to the importance of the matter ; 
there is no climax, for συμμέτ. is not stronger than σύσσωμα. The 
former word is found outside this Epistle only in Josephus, but 
the verb συμμετέχω occurs in Xen. and Plato. Jerome renders 
the words “cohaeredes et concorporales et comparticipes pro- 
missionis,” defending the inelegance of the Latin by the import- 
ance of correctly representing the Greek. The genitive ἐπαγγ. 
depends only on ovpper. The promise is the promise of salva- 
tion, of a part in the kingdom of the Messiah ; and to be partakers 
of the promise is to be joined with those to whom the promise is 
given. ‘There is no need, then, to take ἡ éray. as=the thing pro- 
mised, still less to understand this specially of the Holy Spirit. 
In the passages to which Eadie and others refer in support of such 
a restriction, the Spirit is expressly named, e.g. Gal. ili. 14; ch. 
i 12: 

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ and διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου refer to all three epithets. 
“Tn Christ Jesus through the gospel.” In Christ, not διά, for He 
was not simply the means; it was in His person that this effect 


84 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [ III. 1,3 


was produced. Cf. i. 7; and for an analogous distinction between 
τ and διά, even where both substantives are impersonal, 1 Pet. 

. 5, & δυνάμει Θεοῦ φρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως, and Heb. x. το, ἐν 
ᾧ θελήματι ἡ ἡγιασμένοι ἐστε διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς, K.7.r. 

7. οὗ ἐγενήθην διάκονος. “ΟΥ̓ which I became a minister” 
(ἐγενήθην, SA BD*G; but ἐγενόμην, CD° KL). The use of 
γενηθῆναι instead of the Attic γενέσθαι is condemned by Phrynichus, 
who calls it Doric; but it is frequent in later Greek writers (Poly- 
bius, Diodorus, Dion. Hal. etc.), as is shown by Lobeck (ad 
Phryn. p. 109). ‘There is no ground, then, for assigning to the 
word here a passive shade of meaning, as is done by Oecum., οὐδὲν 
γὰρ ἐγὼ ἔργον ἐμὸν συνεισήνεγκα τῇ χάριτι ταύτῃ. Compare, on 
the contrary, Col. iv. 11, ἐγενήθησάν μοι παρηγορία ; τ Thess. ii. 14, 
μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε. 

διάκονος. Harless maintains that 6. denotes the servant in his 
activity for that service, while ὑπηρέτης denotes him in his activity 
for the Master, apparently on the ground that διακονεῖν te or τινί 
τὶ is said, and he compares 1 Cor. iv. 1 with Col. i 7. But 
ὑπηρετεῖν τινί τι is also said (Xen. Azad. vii. 7. 46; Soph. Phi7. 
1012), and the distinction cannot be maintained; see 2 Cor. 
Xi. 23, διάκονοι Χριστοῦ εἰσι; 1 Tim. iv. 6; and for ὑπηρέτης, Acts 
RXV 10; uke 2: 

κατὰ τὴν δωρεὰν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς δοθείσης μοι κατὰ τὴν 
ἐνέργειαν τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. According to the gift of that grace 
of God which was given to me “by virtue of the exercise of His 
power.” τῆς δοθείσης is the reading of 8 A BC D* 6, Vulg. Boh. 
The accusative is read by D° KL, Syr., Chrys. The genitive is 
one of apposition, the gift being the grace given, so that the two 
readings do not differ in sense; but logically the genitive has the 
advantage, as the grace required this further definition more than 
the gift. 

κατὰ τὴν ἐν. αὐτοῦ, These words, which are to be connected 
with δοθείσης, are by no means superfluous, but express the ever- 
present consciousness of St. Paul that his mission as an apostle 
was not due to anything in himself, it was the grace of God given 
with Divine power that alone changed the persecutor into the 
apostle. Hence the accumulation δωρεά, χάρις, δοθείσης, ἐνέργεια, 
δύναμις, proceeding from the feeling of his own unworthiness, 
suggested by ob διάκ. ἐγενήθην. “Nolite respicere quid sim 
meritus, quia dominus ultro mihi sua liberalitate hoc contulit ut 
sim apostolus gentium ; non mea dignitate sed ejus gratia. Nolite 
etiam respicere qualis fuerim; nam domini est homines_ nihili 
extollere. Haec est potentiae ejus efficacia, ex nihilo grande aliquid 
efficere.”, See Dale; eet. xi. pear. 

8. ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων ἐδόθη ἣ χάρις αὕτη. τῶν 
is added before ἁγίων in the Received Text, against a great pre- 


III. 8] PAUL THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES 85 


ponderance of authority. ἁγίων is used as a substantive. “To 
me who am less than the least of all saints” (ze. all Christians) 
“was this grace given.” Closely connected in thought with the 
preceding, as expressing his own unworthiness in contrast with 
God’s grace. ᾿ἘἘλαχιστότερος. Double forms of comparatives and 
superlatives are frequent in the poets. Wetstein quotes Eustathius, 
who has collected numerous instances. But they also occur in the 
later prose writers, ¢.g. μειζότερος (Malalas, 490. 9; also 3 John 4); 
ἐλαχιστότατος (Sextus Empir.; also Matt. 111. 54, ix. 406), 
apparently without any increase of meaning. ‘The instances in 
earlier prose writers (Xen. Aristot.) seem to be invented by the 
respective writers. ‘The present instance is remarkable as a com- 
bination of superlative and comparative. It has a curiously 
parallel form in Aristotle, A/efaph. x. 4. 7 (Bekker), οὔτε yap τοῦ 
ἐσχάτου ἐσχατώτερον εἴη av τι; but there the form is introduced 
only as expressing an impossible conception, and is construed as a 
comparative; here, on the contrary, ἐλαχιστότερος appears to 
express a definite idea, not only least of all saints, but even less 
than this implies. It may therefore be considered a unique 
formation. ‘The expression can hardly be interpreted, with some 
eminent expositors, as referring to his consciousness of enduring 
sinfulness, as to which he could not place himself lower than all 
saints. ‘True it is, no doubt, that every Christian, when he looks 
into his own heart, and is conscious of the sin that still dwells 
there, and knows that he cannot see what is in the heart of others, 
may be ready to exclaim, ἐγὼ ἐλαχιστότερος πάντων ἁγίων ; but this 
does not express a deliberate comparison, and whatever such a 
one may feel at such moments, he would act unwisely if, when 
instructing and exhorting others, he should thus proclaim his own 
inferiority to them. Such a confession would be likely to be mis- 
understood, and either called hypocritical or made the ground of 
the retort, Why, then, take upon you to instruct and reprove your 
betters? Certainly St. Paul gives us little reason to think that he 
would take such a view. He declares that he has “lived in all 
good conscience toward God”; that if any one might have confi- 
dence in the flesh, he might, being blameless as touching the 
righteousness which is in the law. And as one of the ἅγιοι, he 
does not reckon himself amongst the babes in Christ, but the 
mature, τέλειοι (Phil. 11. 15). He affirms that in nothing is he 
behind the ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι ; nay, he does not hesitate to call 
on his readers to be imitators of him, as he is of Christ. While 
never fora moment forgetting his own nothingness, and that it is 
only by the grace of God that he was what he was, he likewise 
never forgets his true position in Christ’s service. And he was too 
much taken up with his work in that service to have time for 
indulging in that kind of self-examination which consists in analys- 


86 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [III. 8 


ing one’s state of mind or one’s feelings. In Rom. vii. 17, to 
which Harless refers, he is describing the state from which he has 
been delivered (2d. ver. 25, viil. 2). 

His recollection, ever vivid, of his former career as a persecutor 
is quite sufficient explanation of the expression here used. 

The same writers who hold that the ἅγιοι ἀπόστολοι, ver. 5, 
could proceed only from an imitator who forgot his part, are of 
opinion that the expression now before us is an exaggerated imita- 
tion of 1 Cor. xv. 9, “1 am the least of the apostles, that am not 
meet to be called an apostle.” But there was no occasion there 
for any comparison with believers in general ; he is only speaking 
of himself as one of the apostles ; here he speaks of a grace that 
distinguished him above other believers, and, ‘now undeservedly,” 
is his natural feeling. Indeed, we may with more justice say that 
this striking and unique expression could not proceed from calcu- 
lated imitation ; it has the stamp of a spontaneous outflow of an 
intense feeling of unworthiness. Nor does it really go beyond the 
passage in 1 Cor.; for there he declares himself not only the least of 
the apostles, but not meet to be called an apostle ; here he does 
not say that he is not meet to be reckoned amongst the ἅγιοι. 
For the reader will not fail to note that notwithstanding the depth 
of his self-depreciation he still counts himself (or is represented as 
counting himself), and that not with hesitation, amongst the ἅγιοι, 
the very term which when joined with ἀπόστολοι is thought to 
be unapostolic. Yet no one supposes that ἁγίων here is incon- 
sistent with humility. 

τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαι τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
The Rec. Text has ἐν before τοῖς €6., with DGKL. It is absent 
from SABCP, 

“To preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of 
Christ.” This is what ἡ χάρις αὕτη consisted in. αὕτη refers to 
what follows. Harless regards the words as an exposition of δωρεά, 
ἐμοί to αὕτη being treated as a parenthesis in order to avoid what 
he thinks would be unnatural, the close of a period within the 
long parenthesis, whose unusual length is only explained by the 
uninterrupted flow of thought. In that case αὕτη would refer 
backward to ver. 7. But it is very awkward to separate εὐαγ- 
γελίσασθαι from the immediately preceding ἡ χάρις αὕτη. As to 
vU. 2-13, this is not grammatically a parenthesis, for the sentence in 
ver. I is completely broken off, and a new sentence begins in 
ver. 14. 

ἀνεξιχνίαστον. Theodoret well remarks : καὶ πῶς κηρύττεις 
εἴπερ ὁ πλοῦτος ἀνεξιχνίαστος ; τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτό, φησι, κηρύττω, 
ὅτι ἀνεξιχνίαστος. The neuter πλοῦτος, however, is the best 
supported reading in the text, being in s*ABCD*G 17 
67**, while δ’ 99 K L P have the masculine, “the riches of 


III.9] PAUL THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES 87 


Christ”; all the inexhaustible blessings contained in Him. 
Comp. Rom. xi. 33 (where the same word aveéx. occurs), and 
1 Cor. xiii. 9-12, “ We know in part,” etc., and Phil. 11. ro. 


9. καὶ φωτίσαι [πάντας]. The reading is doubtful. φωτίσαι without 
πάντας is read by §* A 677, Cyr. Hil. and apparently Jerome. πάντας is 
added by NC BCDGKLP, Ital., Vulg. Syr., Chrys. a/.; Tisch. Treg. 
Westcott and Hort leave out the word. ‘The insertion seems easy to account 
for, as the verb seemed to require an accusative, which it usually has in the 
N.T. As to the sense, the advantage seems to be on the side of the 
omission. The general meaning is, indeed, pretty much the same with either 
reading, since the result of bringing the οὐκ. to light is that all men are enabled 
to see it. But πάντας would seem to represent this result as attained by 
opening the eyes of men, whereas, since it was by revelation that the apostle 
learned it, opening men’s eyes would not be sufficient ; the mystery itself had 
to be brought to light. Besides, the meaning given to φωτίσαι with the 
reading πάντας, viz. to enlighten by way of instruction, has no parallel in the 
N.T., although it is so used in a few passages in the Sept. (Judg. xiii. 8; 
2 Kings xii. 2, xvii. 27, 28). Moreover, if πάντας is read, although it is 
not emphatic, it cannot be limited to the Gentiles, and it would hardly be in 
St. Paul’s manner to claim as his the office of enlightening all men as to the 
mystery. 


τίς ἡ οἰκονομία tod μυστηρίου, The Rec. Text has κοινωνία, 
a remarkable variation, but found in few MSs. _ οἰκονομία is in all 
the uncials, most cursives, and the versions and Fathers. 

“What is the arrangement, or administration, of the mystery?” 
The mystery is that indicated in ver. 6, and that which was ordered 
or arranged as to the carrying out of this is the οἰκ. tr. por. This 
was entrusted to St. Paul; cf. ver. 2. This seems more natural 
than to interpret oix. as the arrangement which consisted in 
hitherto concealing the mystery and now revealing it. Comp. 
Col. i. 25, τὴν otk. τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς πληρῶσαι 
τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἀπὸ τῶν 
alLWVWV, 

τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου, “ which was hidden’ "= σεσιγημένου, Rom. 
XVi. 2 5. Comp. also τ Cor. ii. 7) καλοῦμεν Θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐ ἐν μυστηρίῳ 
τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην. 

ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων, equivalent to χρόνοις αἰωνίοις, Rom. xvi. 25, 
“from the beginning.” The expression occurs only here and Col. 
1. 26 in the N.T. ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος (used also by Longinus) occurs in 
Luke 1. 70; Acts ili. 21, xv. 18. ἐκ τοῦ ai., which is used by 
St John, ix. 32, is also found in Greek writers. Comp. zpo 
τῶν αἰώνων, I Cor. 11. 7. 

ἐν τῷ Θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι. “In God who created all 
things.” The Rec. Text adds, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, with D*K L, 
Chrys. Theodoret, Oec. But the words are omitted by SABC 
D* GP, Vulg. Syr. Pesh. and Harcl. (text) and other versions, 
Mert. Jerome, Augustine, ad. 

It is not quite clear what is the point here of the words τῷ ra 


88 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [III. 10 


a. κτίσαντι. When the words διὰ I. Xp. were read, a reference to 
the spiritual or new creation was naturally thought of ; but these 
words being omitted, such a reference is excluded. But, in fact, it 
is remote from the context, and unsuitable to the emphatic and 
unrestricted πάντα, as well as to the simple κτίσαντι. 

It is clear that κτίζειν cannot be applied to the μυστήριον, which 
is not a thing created. The simplest explanation seems to be that 
the Creator of all was free to make what arrangement He pleased 
as to the concealment and revelation of His purpose. As Bengel 
remarks: “ Rerum omnium creatio fundamentum est omnis reliquae 
oeconomiae pro potestate Dei universali liberrime dispensatae.” 
Harless connects the words with the following: “ Created all 
things in order to reveal in the Church His varied wisdom.” But 
so important an assertion as this would hardly be made in so 
incidental a manner in a subordinate clause, especially as it has no 
analogy elsewhere in the N.T. Moreover, νῦν in the following 
clause is against this view; see on ver. Io. 

10-13. Jt 7s God’s purpose, that even the angelic powers should 
learn through the Church the varied wisdom of God as shown in 
flis eternal purpose in Christ. 

10. iva γνωρισθῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ tats ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς 
ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἧ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
“To the end that now might be made known to the princi- 
palities and the powers in the heavenly places the much varied 
wisdom of God.” iva is supposed by some to be connected with 
the whole of the preceding, or specially with ἐδόθη, «.7.A. This 
would make St. Paul ascribe to his own preaching a result in 
which the other apostles had their share. But as γνωρισθῇ is 
directly opposed to dzoxexp., and viv to ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων, the most 
natural interpretation is that the secret or mystery was concealed 
in former times in order that now the wisdom of God might be 
manifested in its fulfilment. Braune, however, connects ‘va with 
τίς ἡ oik. τοῦ wp. “The arrangement is directed to this end, that 
the wisdom of God,” etc. 

ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ tats ἐξουσίαις. Understood by some of the 
older expositors of earthly powers in general, or of Jewish rulers in 
particular (so Locke), or again of heathen priests, or of Church 
authorities ; all from unwillingness to admit the sublime thought of 
the apostle, that God’s wisdom in the scheme of redemption is an 
object of contemplation to heavenly intelligences. Comp., on the 
contrary, 1 Pet. i. 12, ‘ which things angels desire to look into.” 

V. Soden, comparing Col. ii. 10-15, understands the words of 
the angelic powers which ministered the law on the one hand, and 
on the other hand the elemental spirits which claimed the venera- 
tion of the heathen. To both was it now made manifest that the 
enmity was at an end. 


TET. 11] GOD’S WISDOM DISPLAYED 89 


ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, local, cf. 1. 3, 20. It qualifies the preceding 
substantive notwithstanding the absence of the article, which is 
not necessary in the case of local definitions. Cf. Demosth. c¢. 
Pantaen, p. 967, τοῖς ἔργοις ἐν Mapwreia: Aeschines, Fads. Leg. 42, 
τὴν τρίτην πρεσβείαν ἐπὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ᾿Αμφικτυόνων (Bernhardy, 
Ῥ 222). 

διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, 2.4. as Theodoret expresses it, διὰ τῆς περὶ 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν οἰκονομίας. ‘The Church is the phenomenon, which 
by its existence is a proof and exhibition of the Divine wisdom as 
manifested in a scheme of redemption which is world wide. 

πολυποίκιλος does not mean ‘very wise,” as has been hastily 
inferred from the use of ποίκιλος in Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 315, where, 
however, the word means “crafty.” πολυποίκιλος is used by 
Eurip. 2h. Taur. 1149, of cloth;. by Eubulus, af. Athen. 15, 
p- 679d, of flowers. In a figurative sense, as here, it occurs in 
the Orphica (\xi. 4, of discourse), and in Theophilus. The Latin 
here has “‘muitiformis.” The word probably refers to the variety 
of God’s dealings with Jews and Gentiles in former times, which 
are now seen to have worked to one end. Gregory of Nyssa 
(Hom. ΟἹ]. in Cant. Cant. followed by Theoph. and Oecum.) 
gives a Striking interpretation. ‘Before the incarnation of our 
Saviour the heavenly powers knew the wisdom of God only as 
simple and uniform, effecting wonders in a manner consonant 
with the nature of each thing. There was nothing ποίκιλον. But 
now by means of the οἰκονομία, with reference to the Church 
and the human race, the wisdom of God is known no longer 
as simple, but as πολυποίκιλος, producing contraries by con- 
traries; by death, life; by dishonour, glory; by sin, righteous- 
ness ; by a curse, blessing; by weakness, power. The invisible is 
manifested in flesh. He redeems captives, Himself the purchaser, 
and Himself the price.” The thought is no doubt striking, but the 
adjective πολυπ. does not suggest παράδοξον. Perhaps, indeed, the 
word has been too much pressed by some expositors, and is only 
suggested by the thought of the great apparent difference and 
real harmony between the Christian dispensation and that which 
preceded it. 

11. κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων. According to the purpose of the 
ages.” The genitive does not seem to be correctly taken as that of 
the object, the purpose concerning the ages, the foreordering of the 
ages (Whitby), since the writer is speaking of the one purpose 
carried out in Christ. Nor can πρόθεσις be taken as =fore- 
knowledge (Chrys.). Modern commentators generally take it as 
=eternal. Ellicott compares πρόθεσιν... πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, 
2 Tim. i. 9; but then the latter words are connected with δοθεῖσαν, 
not with πρόθ. A better sense is obtained by taking the genitive 
as one of possession, “the purpose that runs through the 


90 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [11]. 12 


ages.” Cf. Tennyson, “through the ages one increasing purpose 
runs.” 

ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν. “Which He 
purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” It is questioned whether 
ἐποίησεν means “formed” or “executed” the purpose. The 
immediate connexion favours the former view ; but it is urged by 
Meyer, Ellicott, αὐ, that what follows belongs to the execution, 
not the formation of the purpose ; and this has been thought also 
to account for ᾿Ιησοῦ being added, since it was not the formation 
of the purpose, but its accomplishment that took place in the 
historical Jesus. For the use of ποιεῖν in this sense we are referred 
to chy i. 3; Matt. xx. 51; John vi 38, and) in themocgr 
t Kings v. 8; Isa. xliv. 28. But in all these passages the object 
of the verb is θέλημα, which primarily means that which is willed, 
so that the exact meaning of π. θέλημα is to perform that which 
God, e.g., has willed. It could not mean to form a purpose. With 
πρόθεσις it is otherwise. ‘This properly means the purpose: as an 
act, although by a natural figure it may also be used of that 
which is purposed. ‘The natural meaning of ποιεῖν zp., therefore, 
is to form a purpose, and the passages cited do not prove that 
any other sense is possible. Meyer also compares ποιεῖν γνώμην, 
Rev. xvil. 17; but even if this were quite parallel, we cannot 
explain St. Paul’s Greek by that of the Apocalypse. In any 
case, when it is a πρόθεσις τῶν αἰώνων that is in question, ποιεῖν 
would be a very weak verb to use. The addition of Ἰησοῦ is 
sufficiently accounted for by this, that the apostle desired to 
bring to the mind of his readers the thought that He whom 
they know as Jesus their Lord is none other than the Christ in 
whom God had from eternity formed His purpose. So likewise 
Ch. 1 7. 

19. ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποιθήσε! 
διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ. 

So δὲ AB 17 80, Greg-Nyss. The Rec. Text. has τήν before προσαγωγήν, 

with CD°K LP, Ath. Chrys. ad. 
D*¢ have τὴν προσαγωγὴν καὶ τὴν παρρησίαν. 
G: προσαγωγὴν εἰς τὴν παρρησίαν. The article seems more likely to have 


been inserted for grammatical reasons than omitted either accidentally or 
otherwise. 


“Tn whom we have our boldness and access in confidence 
through our faith in Him.” παρρησία is primarily freedom of 
speech, and is frequently found in that sense in the N.T., as well 
as in that of “plainness of speech,” John xvi. 25, 26. It occurs 
in the sense of “confidence” in the Apocrypha and in Josephus, 
e.g. 1 Mace. iv. 18, λήψετε TA σκῦλα μετὰ π.; Wisd. ν. 1, στήσεται 
ἐν π. πολλῇ ὁ δίκαιος; so Phil. i. 20; 1 Tim. itl. 13; Heb. x. 19; 
cf, x John ii. 28, ii 21; iv. 27, v.14. The (transitiongyen 


III. 13] GOD’S WISDOM DISPLAYED ΟἹ 


meaning seems not to be by way of generalisation from confidence 
in speaking to confidence generally ; for the primary meaning is 
not’ “confidence,” but “freedom, openness” of speech. But 
freedom of speech (in the active sense) implies the absence of 
fear or shame; see the passages just referred to in t John 1]. 28, 
ΠΟ πὸ ἘΠῚ not be yashamed’?;)iv.. 17, “a m the day of 
judgment.” In John ii. 21 and iv. 12, z. is connected with 
prayer. 

On zpocaywyy see 11. 18. The intransitive sense is obviously 
the more suitable here. If the article is not read we must either 
suppose παρρησία and προσαγωγή to form parts of one conception, 
or we must connect the following words with the latter only. What 
has just been said of παρρησία shows that the former alternative 
is quite possible, παρρησία. καὶ προσαγωγή being nearly equivalent 
to προσαγωγὴ μετὰ παρρησίας, and the idea would be the same that 
is expressed i in Heb. iv. 16, προσερχώμεθα μετὰ παρρησίας τῷ θρόνῳ 
τῆς χάριτος. The other alternative would leave παρρησία very 
indefinite. 

How grandly is this confidence expressed in Rom. viil. 38, 39! 
(Meyer.) 

πεποίθησις is a word of the later Greek. It occurs several 
times in Josephus, also in Sextus Empiricus and in Philo, but only 
once in the Sept. 2 Kings xvii. 19. 

διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ. ‘The genitive is that of the object, the 
πίστις is defined by its object. Soin Mark xi. 22, ἔχετε π. Θεοῦ ; 
Rom. 111. 22, 26; James il. 1, μὴ ἐν προσωποληψίαις ἔχετε τὴν 
πίστιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, and elsewhere. The words are to be 
connected with ἔχομεν, not with πεποιθήσει. 

18. Διὸ αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐγκακεῖν ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσί μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. Διό, 
viz. because I am the minister of so great a matter ; connected, not 
with the preceding verse only, but with 8-12. ‘The greater the 
office, the less becoming would it be to lose heart. 

The following words, however, admit of two interpretations. 
Either, I pray that I may not lose heart, or, I entreat you, not to 
lose heart. The latter view is adopted by the Syr., Theodoret, 
Jerome, Bengel, Harless, Olshausen, Braune. In its favour it is 
alleged that it is much more natural to supply the subject of the 
infinitive from that of the substantive verb ; and, secondly, that it is 
difficult to understand év on the other view. But the chief objec- 
tion to the first-mentioned interpretation, according to Harless, is 
from the structure of the whole passage. Either St. Paul resumes 
in these words the course of thought begun in ver. 1, or he does not. 
Now it is the thought of supplication for his readers that separates 
the subsequent context from the parenthesis. If, then, he does not 
here resume ver. 1, how can we suppose that he could express the 
same thought in the parenthesis itself without observing that the 


2 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [ III. 13 


parenthesis was thereby removed? If he does here resume ver. 1, 
the τούτου χάριν after διό, instead of καί, is inexplicable, or rather 
intolerable. ‘The argument assumes that αἰτοῦμαι means, I pray 
(God), and is set aside by taking that word as=I entreat you. 
The difficulties in Theodoret’s interpretation are greater. First, if 
αἰτοῦμαι is, I pray God, Θεόν could hardly be omitted. The passages 
cited as parallel, viz. Col. i. 9 and Jas. 1. 6, are not really so. In 
the former, αἰτούμενοι only expresses the content of the prayer 
mentioned in προσευχόμενοι, which, of course, means prayer to 
God. In the latter, αἰτείτω repeats the αἰτείτω of the previous 
verse, which is defined by παρὰ τοῦ δίδοντος Θεοῦ πᾶσιν. Moreover, 
the words ἥτις ἐστι δόξα ὑμῶν supply much more naturally a motive 
for the readers than for the apostle. ‘The pov after θλίψεσι, too, 
would be superfluous if the apostle were praying for himself. And 
we may add that the implied apprehension lest he should be 
disheartened by persecution is not in harmony with the apostle’s 
character or with his other utterances. He gloried in tribulation, 
and took pleasure in persecution (Rom. v. 3; 2 Cor. xi. 10; Col. 
i. 24). Compare also the passage just referred to in Rom. viii. 38, 
39. But he might have reason to fear that some of the Gentile 
converts might be tempted to lose heart when they saw the per- 
secution to which the apostle was subjected just because of his 
proclaiming the doctrine, here insisted on, of the free and equal 
participation of the Gentiles in the blessings of the Messiah’s 
kingdom. 

ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσί pou ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. “In my tribulations on your 
behalf.” Namely, those which came upon him by reason of his 
being the Apostle of the Gentiles. Compare his touching words, 
| hil. τι: 17, “Even if I am offered on the sacrifice of your faith, I 
rejoice.” ἐν denotes the circumstances in which, etc.; ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν 15 
clearly to be joined to θλίψεσί pov, not to αἰτοῦμαι ‘(as Harless). 
The article is not required, since θλίβεσθαι ὑπέρ τινος is possible 
(2)Gor! 1 6) 5) ef. (Gal. τν Τῇ: 

ἥτις ἐστι δόξα ὑμῶν. ἥτις introduces a reason; it is not simply 
equivalent to 7, but implies that what is predicated belongs to the 
nature of the thing, “ quippe qui,” “inasmuch as this.” τ 
referred to μὴ ἐγκακεῖν by Theodoret, followed by Harless, 
Olshausen, Braune, αὶ This, of course, supposes the preceding 
prayer to be for the apostle himself. On this view it would be his 
personal fortitude that is the glory of the Ephesians, which would 
be a strange expression. If it be asked how his afflictions could 
be their glory, Chrysostom replies, “ Because God so loved them 
as to give His Son for them, and to afflict His servants ; for in 
order that they should obtain so great blessings Paul was im- 
prisoned.” 

14-19. Prayer for the readers, that they may be given spiritual 


III. 14, 15] PRAYER FOR THE READERS 93 


strength ; that Christ may dwell in thetr hearts ; and that they may 
learn to know Fits love, which surpasses knowledge. 

14. τούτου χάριν κάμπτω τὰ γόνατά pov. Resumes ver. 1, “On 
this account,” referring to the train of thought in the latter part of 
ch. ii. Although the construction was broken off in ver. 2, the 
thought has continued to turn on the same ideas. “I bend my 
knees,” this expresses the earnestness of the prayer, τὴν κατα- 
νενυγμένην δέησιν ἐδήλωσεν, Chrys. “A signo rem denotat,” 
Calvin. Some, as Calv., have with strange literality supposed that 
the apostle actually knelt while writing ; (against πρός, see below). 
The usual posture in praying was standing: “when ye stand 
praying,” Mark xi. 25; ‘‘stood and prayed,” Luke xviii. 11; “the 
publican standing afar off,” 26. 13. But kneeling is mentioned, 
1 Kings viii. 54 (Solomon); Dan. vi. 10; and, in the N.T., Luke 
Xxii. 41; Acts vil. 60, xx. 36, xxi. 5. Eusebius mentions it as the 
custom proper to the Christians: τὸ οἰκεῖον τοῖς χριστιανοῖς τῶν 
εὐχῶν ἔθος (H.£. v..5). Justin Martyr and Basil represent 
kneeling as a symbol of our fall by sin. See on Luke xxi. 41. 

πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα. κάμπτειν γόνυ in the literal sense takes the 
dative (Rom. xi. 4, xiv. 11 ; both places, however, being quotations). 
Here as the words were equivalent to προσεύχομαι, πρός is used as 
indicating the direction of the prayer. 


After Πατέρα the Rec. Text has τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, with 
N° DGKL, Syr. Vulg., Chrys. a/. 

The words are wanting in 8* ABCP 17 67**, Boh. Aeth., Jerome 
(expressly), and many others. The insertion of the words is easily accounted 
for ; there would be no reason for their omission. Although Jerome expressly 
states, ‘‘quod sequitur . . . non ut in Latinis Codicibus additum est, ad 
patrem domini nostri Jesu Christi, sed simpliciter ad patrem legendum ut dei 
patris nomen non domino nostro Jesu Christo sed omnibus creaturis ration- 
abilibus coaptetur” (vil. 599), yet a little before he had himself written, ‘‘ad 
patrem domini nostri Jesu Christi.” Whether the reading there is due to him 
or to ἃ copyist, it serves as an illustration of the fact that the evidence of 
readings furnished by quotations in the Fathers as distinguished from express 
statements must be used with caution. 


15. ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς Kal ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται. 
“From whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.” 
We meet here with a perplexity similar to that in 11. 21 (πᾶσα 
οἰκοδομή), except that here no MSS. appear to have the article. 
We should rather have expected the apostle to say “the whole 
family,” which would require πᾶσα ἣ πατριά. Indeed, many 
commentators and translators have so taken the words as they 
stand. ‘This was perhaps even more natural in the case of those 
who read the addition τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, since it 
appeared easy to take these words as the antecedent to ot, the 
sense thus yielded being that “‘the whole family” was named from 
Christ. Whether that addition be accepted or not, if πᾶσα π. is 


94 THE EPISTLE. TO THE EPHESIANS [111. 15 


rendered “every family,” the antecedent must be τόν Πατέρα. But 
if those words are omitted, the rendering “the whole family” loses 
much of its plausibility. Grammatically it cannot be maintained. 

Ilarpud is a quite classical word (although in classical writers 
πατρά is more common). It occurs in Herodot. in the sense 
“race” or “ tribe,” as when he says there are three zarpiat of the 
Babylonians (1. 200). In the Sept. it occurs in a similar sense of 
those descended from a common ancestor, narrower, however, 
than φυλή, and wider than οἶκος ; see Ex. xii. 3; Num. xxxii. 28; 
but also in a wider sense, as in Ps. xxi. (xxi) 28, πᾶσαι at 
πατριαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν. So in Acts iii. 25, πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῆς γῆς, for 
which we have in Gen. xii. 3 and xxviii. 14 EU and in xxii. 18 
and xxvi. 4 ἔθνη. In Luke ii. 4 we have ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς 
Δαβίδ. See note ad loc. 

Some of the ancients take z. in the present passage | as = father- 
hood, πατρότης. Thus Theodoret says: ὃς ἀληθῶς ὑ ὑπάρχει πατήρ, 
ὃς οὐ Tap ἄλλου τοῦτο λαβὼν ἔχει, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις μεταδέδωκε 
τοῦτο. And Athanasius: “God as Father of the Son is the only 
true Father, and all created paternity is a shadow of the true” 
(Orat. in Arian.i. 24). But, not to insist on the consideration 
that this conception is of a kind foreign to St. Paul’s mode of 
thought, the word itself does not admit such a meaning; and 
those who have adopted it are involved in a difficulty with respect 
to the πατριαί in heaven,—a difficulty which Theodoret solves by 
understanding spiritual fathers to be called heavenly fathers ; 
Jerome, by supposing the archangels to be alluded to as fathers. 

Setting aside this interpretation, we take the words as= 
“every family.” This cannot be understood of “the family on 
earth” and “the family in heaven,” in whatever way these 
respectively are interpreted, for πᾶσα implies a plurality. By 
the πατριαί on earth are doubtless meant the nations, with the 
fundamental division into Jews and Gentiles ; by those in heaven, 
angels regarded as belonging to certain groups or “ tribes.” 

ὀνομάζεται, 2.6. gets the name πατριά, not, are called “sons of 

God,” which is not in the words. Nor is it merely the fact of 
creation that is referred to ; for the relation of intelligent beings 
to their author is something deeper than that of things to their 
creator. Of things merely material God is the creator ; of per- 
sonal intelligences He is the Father. Hence the words suggest a 
motive for the prayer, and a reason for expecting its fulfilment, 
for those addressed were also πατριά, of whom God was the 
Father. The rendering “every family” is therefore not only 
more grammatical, but more to the purpose than “the whole 
family,” and the addition of the words τοῦ Κυρίου, «.7.X., injures the 
sense. 

ὀνομάζεται has been taken by some te mean “ exists,” or “ is 


III. 16] PRAYER FOR THE READERS 95 


called into existence”; but the verb never has this meaning, 
certainly not in i. 21 or v. 3. Even were it true that καλεῖν meant 
“to call into existence,” this would prove nothing as to ὀνομάζειν, 
for καλεῖν means to call in the sense “bid one come,” which in 
certain circumstances might signify to call into existence ; whereas 
ὄν. is simply to give a name to a thing. Nor is it true that καλεῖν 
of itself has the alleged meaning: it is certainly not proved by 
Philo’s words, “ τὰ μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι." For ὀνομάζεσθαι 
ἔκ τινος, cf. Soph. Oed. Zyr. 1036, ὥστ᾽ ὠνομάσθης ἐκ τύχης 
ταύτης, ὃς εἶ, 

ἵνα δῷ ὑμῖν κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, ‘That He would 
grant you according to the riches of His glory.” δῷ is the reading 
of s ABCG, whilst δῴη is read by D K Land most MSS. The 
ἵνα depends on the idea of προσεύχομαι implied in the preceding, 
so that this and the following verses express the content of the 
prayer. For iva cf. Col. i. 9. “Riches of His glory,” Rom. 
ix. 23. Not to be limited to power or to grace, but in accordance 
with His whole glorious perfection. The term πλοῦτος 15 par- 
ticularly suitable when the thought is of God as a giver. 

δυνάμει κραταιωθῆναι διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ eis τὸν ἔσω 
ἄνθρωπον. “Το be strengthened with power through His Spirit in 
the inward man.” δυνάμει is instrumental, “αἰ virtute seu fortitudine 
ab eo accepta corroboremini,” Estius. Harless understands it as 
denoting the form in which the strengthening takes place, viz. a 
strengthening in power, not in knowledge or the like, comparing 
Acts iv. 33, “with great power gave the apostles witness”; but 
this does not seem parallel. In the present case this would be 
a tautology, “ be strengthened with strength.” 

κραταιόω, from the poetic κραταιός (used also in later prose and 
in Sept.), is a later form for κρατύνω. 

eis indicates the direction of the gift. The meaning of ὃ ἔσω 
ἄνθρωπος appears to be decided by Rom. vii. 22, “I delight in the 
law of God,” κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον. It is not therefore the καινὸς 
ἄνθρ., but is the higher moral and rational nature, the Reason, 
which, by its constitution, is in harmony with the Divine Law, but 
in the unregenerate is enslaved to the power of sin in the flesh, that 
is, to the appetites and desires which constitute man’s lower nature 
(compare Butler’s Sermons on Human Nature). ὃ ἔσω ἄνθ. 
requires renewal, and undergoes renewal from day to day, ἀνακαι- 
νοῦται ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ, 2 Cor. iv. τό. 

It has been maintained, not without plausibility, that the expressions ὁ 
ἔσω ἄνθρ. and ὁ ἔξω ἄνθρ. are derived from the school of Plato, not directly, 
but through Plato’s use having influenced common speech. We find in Plato, 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ἐντὸς ἄνθρωπος (ef. ix. p. 589); in Plotinus, ὁ εἴσω ἄνθρ. 
(nn, ν. I. 10) and ὁ ἔξω ἄνθρ. The threefold division, πνεῦμα, νοῦς, σῶμα, 


in I Thess. v. 23, points in the same direction. With St. Paul, however, the 
contrast between the inward man and the outward man is not that between 


96 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [III. 17, 18 


the pure and the impure. The inward man includes not only the Reason, 
which accepts the law of God and approves of it, and the Conscience, which 
pronounces the obligation and condemns the violation of it, but also the Will 
from which action proceeds ; see Rom. vii. 17, 18, where ἐγώ is used of both 
parts. St. Paul’s view of the relation of the man to virtue and vice is much 
more like that of Aristotle. The man knows the right, but at the moment of 
action appetite blinds him. 

It deserves notice also that St. Paul does not use πνεῦμα of the unre- 
generate. In them the higher principle is νοῦς, which ineffectively protests 
against the σάρξ, while in the regenerate πνεῦμα is superior (Rom. vii. 25, 
vill. 4, 9). That he does not mean πνεῦμα and ψυχή to be a complete 
division of the human faculties, would appear from 1 Cor. xiv. 14, 15. 

17. κατοικῆσαι Tov Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Tats καρδίαις ὑμῶν. 
“That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” κατοικῆσαι is, by 
many expositors, taken as the end or result of κραταιωθῆναι on 
account of, 1st, the asyndeton; 2nd, the emphatic position of the 
verb; and 3rd, the difference in the construction of the two 
clauses, which otherwise must be taken as co-ordinate. But 
although the use of the infinitive of end or result is often very lax, 
none of the instances cited in the grammars are parallel to this. 
Setting aside the cases in which the principal verb is one which 
means “to will, order,” etc., or which otherwise involves the notion 
of purpose, in those which remain the subject of the infinitive is the 
same as that of the verb on which it depends. ‘The emphatic 
position of κατοικῆσαι seems sufficiently accounted for by the import- 
ance of the idea it expresses, and the rhetorical advantage of giving 
it a position parallel to that of κραταιωθῆναι. ‘The asyndeton need 
cause no difficulty, considering the structure of the whole sentence. 
κατοικ. 15 not something added to κραται., but is a further definition 
of it. κατοικεῖν is found in N.T. only here and Col. 1. 19, ii. 9 
(but ἐγκατοικεῖν, 2 Pet. 11. 8). It is very frequent in Sept. (as in 
classical authors also), and is opposed to παροικεῖν as the per- 
manent to the transitory ; cf. Gen. xxxvil. 1, κατῴκει ᾿Ιακὼβ ἐν τῇ γῇ 
ov παρῴκησεν ὃ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ : and Philo, de Sacrif. Ab. et Cain, 
§ το, 6 yap Tots ἐγκυκλίοις μόνοις ἐπανέχων παροικεῖ σοφίᾳ, ov 
κατοικεῖ (Thayer). It is hardly probable that there is any allusion 
to the figure in 11. 21, 22, for the indwelling here spoken of is not 
in the Church, but in the individual hearts. ‘‘ How does Christ 
dwell in the hearts?” says Chrysostom. Listen to Christ Himself 
saying, “I and the Father will come and make our abode with 
him.” “In your hearts,” “ut sciamus non satis esse si in lingua 
versetur aut in cerebro volitet,” Calvin. 

18. ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ τεθεμελιωμένοι. “Rooted and 
grounded in love.” ‘These words seem best taken as an irregular 
nominative, a construction of which there are frequent examples, 
especially with participles. Thus iv. 2, παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς περιπατῆσαι 
.. » ἀνεχόμενοι ; Col. il. 2, ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν at καρδίαι αὐτῶν, 
συμβιβασθέντες ; 70. 111. 16, 6 λόγος τοῦ Xp. ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν. . . . 


III. 18] PRAYER FOR TIIE READERS 97 


διδάσκοντες ; 2 Cor. ΙΧ. 10, 11, and 12, 13. Examples in classical 
authors are frequent. 

More prominence is thus given to the thought, and the transi- 
tion to the following clause is made more easy. The result of 
Christ dwelling in their hearts is that they are firmly rooted in 
love, and the consequence is that they are enabled to comprehend, 
etc. This is the view adopted by Origen, Chrysostom, the ancient 
versions (except the Gothic) ; and amongst moderns, Harless, Olsh. 
De Wette, Ellicott, Eadie, Alford. The principal objection made 
to it is founded on the tense of the participles, which, being the 
perfect, would express, not the condition into which the readers 
are to come, but that in which they are already assumed to be. 
This, it is said, would be very illogical in connexion with the wish 
that they should be strengthened, and that Christ might dwell in 
their hearts. The perfect ἐρριζωμένοι in Col. 11. 7 is, it is alleged, 
not parallel, since there the reception of Christ is represented as 
preceding παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστόν. To this it may be replied, first, 
that in ch. 11. 20 the readers are said to be ἐποικοδομηθέντες, and 
yet in ver. 22 there is still a συνοικοδομεῖσθε necessary ; secondly, 
that the participles here express their complete fixedness on the 
foundation, which does not imply that their building up is com- 
plete ; and accordingly in Col. 11. 7 we have ἐρριζωμένοι καὶ ἐποι- 
κοδομούμενοι, the former perfect, the latter present. The fixedness, 
too, is clearly the result of κατοικῆσαι. The present participle 
would be here quite out of place, “ye being in process of being 
rooted and grounded.” What follows depends, not on the progress, 
but on the completion of their grounding. 

The alternative construction adopted by Photius (ap. Oecum.), 
also Meyer, Braune, Oltram., the English Versions (Authorised 
and Revised), is to take the participles with the following clause: 
“to the end that ye, being rooted,” etc. This construction is 
See justified by the passages cited in support of it. In Rom. 

“13! we have τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέεῦ va... ἴῃ 2 Cor. ii, 4, τὴν 
pores ἵνα γνῶτε: I Cor. ΙΧ. 15, ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου iva τὶς κενώσῃ 
(but here the best texts read οὐδεὶς κενώσει): Gal. ii. Το, μόνον 
τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν : John ΧΙ]. 20. τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἵνα τι δῷ: 
Acts xix. 4; λέγων εἰς TOV ἐρχόμενον μετ᾽ αὐτὸν ἵνα πιστεύσωσι. In 
all these instances there is a particular emphasis on the words 
which precede ἵνα, here there is none; the emphasis is on the 
words that follow it. 

That there is a mixture of metaphors here, as in Col. ii. 7 and 
t Cor. iil. 9, is not to be denied; nor is this disproved by show- 
ing that prow was often used without reference to its primitive 
meaning as simply = “‘to establish firmly,” e.g. a tyranny, Herodot. 
1. 64, or the city (Plutarch), or even a road (Soph. Oed. (οἷ. 1591). 
All that this proves is that there is no reason to suppose that the 

7 


98 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [III. 18 


apostle had two images present to his mind. The best ancient 
writers were less critical in this matter than the moderns. Cicero, 
for example, has sometimes a strange mixture of metaphors (see 
In Cat. 1. 12). Lucian has ῥίζαι καὶ θεμέλιοι τῆς ὀρχήσεως (De 
Saltat. 34). 

It may be inferred from the use of the two words that St. Paul 
(like Lucian in the place cited) did not intend the reader to think 
definitely of either image, but used the words in their applied 
sense. ‘This seems the true answer to the difficulty ‘that has 
been raised as to the designation of love as the foundation,—a 
position elsewhere ascribed to faith (Col. i. 23, ii. 7), from which 
love springs (rt Tim. i. 6). Beza asks: “ Radicis et fundamenti 
nomen quomodo fructibus tribuas?” Harless meets the difficulty 
by supplying the missing object of the participles from the clause 
to which they belong, viz. ἐν Χριστῷ; for which there is no sufficient 
reason, especially as we have already a definition by ἐν, so that 
the readers could not think of applying another ἐν. Love is, as 
it were, the soil in which they are firmly fixed. ‘This is not to be 
understood of Christ’s love or God’s love, either of which would 
require some defining genitive, but the grace of love in general as 
the “fundamental” principle of the Christian character. Faith 
retains its usual position (διὰ τῆς π.), but it is love that is the 
working principle.! 

There is no difficulty about the absence of the article before 
ἀγάπῃ. Such omission before names of virtues, vices, etc., is 
frequent in classical writers and in N.T. For ἀγάπη, cf. 2 Cor. 
1 Gals vz 16, 

Westcott and Hort connect ἐν ἀγάπῃ with the foregoing (so 
also Holzhausen), but this overweights that clause. Besides, to 
say that Christ dwells in the heart in love is a strange expression. 
We might, at least, expect “by faith and love” rather than “by 
faith in love.” Further, this construction leaves épp. καὶ τεθ. with- 
out any modal definition, which they seem to demand. 

ἵνα ἐξισχύσητε. ‘That ye may be fully able.” καταλαβέσθαι, 
“to comprehend.” The active alone seems to occur in classical 
writers in this signification (Plato, Phaedr. 250 D), but the middle 
is interpreted by Hesychius 85 -- κατανοεῖσθαι. It occurs in this 
sense in Acts iv. 13, “perceiving that they were unlearned”; 
x. 34, “οἵ a truth I perceive”; and xxv. 25, “finding that he had 
committed nothing,” etc. The first and last of these instances 
are sufficient to show that there is no need to call in the idea of 
“the earnestness or spiritual energy with which the action is 
performed”; the voice simply implies, “to grasp for oneself.” 
Kypke (Qds. vol. ii. p. 294) takes the word to mean “occupare,” 


1A somewhat analogous difficulty has been raised in connexion with 
Luke vii. 47: see note ad loc, 


III. 18] PRAYER FOR THE READERS 99 


“ut possitis occupare ... latitudinem quandam,” etc., compar- 
ing the sense to that in ver. 19, as if (“‘mutato accentu”) τὶ τὸ 
πλάτος stood for τὸ πλάτος τι, as by a similar transposition we 
have in Acts viii. 36, ἐπί te ὕδωρ. Apart from other objections, 
the article is fatal to this. 

τί TO πλάτος Kal μῆκος καὶ ὕψος καὶ βάθος. “What is the 
breadth, and length, and height, and depth.” As to the order of 
the words, ὕψος precedes βάθος in BCDG 17, Vulg. Boh. aZ; 
the contrary, SA KL, Syr. ad. 

The four words seem intended to indicate, not so much the 
thoroughness of the comprehension as the vastness of the thing 
to be comprehended; hardly, however, “ metaphysically con- 
sidered by the ordinary dimensions of space,” which has only 
three dimensions. 

But what is it of which the readers are to learn the dimen- 
sions? Chrysostom replies, “the mystery,” τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι τὸ μυσ- 
τήριον TO ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν οἰκονομηθὲν peta ἀκριβείας εἰδέναι. So 
Theodoret and Theophylact, Beza, Harless, Olshausen, Barry. 
In support of this, Harless remarks that the article shows that 
the substantives refer to something already mentioned. This is 
fallacious, the words being names of attributes, and the article is 
necessary to define them as the breadth, etc., of a definite thing, 
whether that is expressed or implied. Against the interpretation 
is the consideration that a new section of the discourse began in 
ver. 14, after which μυστήριον is not mentioned ; and, besides, the 
μυστήριον of vv. 4-10 is the admission of the Gentiles, not the 
whole scheme of grace, as some of these expositors interpret. 

Bengel understands the words as referring to the dimensions 
of the Christian temple. Eadie remarks, “The figure of a temp!e 
still loomed before the writer’s fancy, and naturally supplied the 
distinctive imagery of the prayer.” This has much plausibility ; 
but the image has not been dwelt on since the first introduction 
of it, nor is it St. Paul’s habit to work out a figure at such length. 
If the remoteness of the substantive was a good reason for not 
adding a pronoun in the genitive, it made it the more necessary 
to repeat the noun. The preceding τεθεμελιωμένοι is so far from 
keeping up the figure, or showing that it was still in the apostle’s 
mind, that it rather tells the opposite way, unless, indeed, with 
Harless, we suppose ἐν Χριστῷ to be understood. Indeed, in 
any case it is not the foundation of the corporate body that is 
there alluded to, but that of individuals. It may, perhaps, be 
replied that in ver. 14 the writer has resumed the thought inter- 
rupted at ver. 2, and that the figure of the temple had immediately 
preceded. But amore serious objection is that the substantives 
simply express magnitude, and the mere magnitude of the temp!e 
was not likely to be dwelt on with such emphasis. Especially is 


100 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [ III. 18 


the mention of the fourth dimension, “depth,” adverse to this 
view, considering that the “depth” of the temple would be that 
of its foundation, and the foundation is either Christ or the 
apostles. This difficulty cannot be surmounted except by intro- 
ducing ideas of which the text gives no hint, if, indeed, they are 
not inconsistent with the figure. Thus an old commentator 
(quoted by Wolf, ap. Eadie) says, “In its depth it descends to 
Christ.” Bengel understands the depth as “profunditas, nulli 
creaturae percontanda”; the length, “‘/ongztudo per omnia secula.” 

V. Soden combines these two views, regarding the μυστήριον as 
the principal conception, the description of which, however, is 
finally summed up in the figure of the temple. De Wette finds 
the object in Col. 11. 3, which he supposes to have been before 
the writer’s mind; thus taking it to be the wisdom of God; cf. 
Job xi. 8. Alford supposes the genitive to be left indefinite, “of 
all that God has revealed or done in and for us”; and this yields 
a very good sense. However, we need not travel beyond the 
immediate context to find a suitable object; it is given us in 
ἀγάπην τοῦ Χριστοῦ in the following verse. The thought comes to a 
climax; having spoken of apprehending the vastness of this, he 
checks himself before adding the genitive to advance a step further 
and declare that the ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ is too vast to be compre- 
hended. It has been objected to this, that the simple γνῶναι 
would be a weakening, not a strengthening, of ver. 18. But, first, 
γνῶναι is much stronger than καταλαβέσθαι, which only means 
to come to know a fact (see the passages cited above); and, 
secondly, it is not simply γνῶναι τὴν ἀγάπην, but γνῶναι τὴν 
ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην. The particle τέ is not 
opposed to this view of the connexion. τέ expresses more an 
internal (logical) relation, καί an external (Winer, ὃ 53. 2). Oltra- 
mare understands simply αὐτῆς, 2.6. ἀγάπης. 


Some of the ancients sought to find a special meaning in each of the four 
dimensions, and to such the Cross naturally suggested itself. We find this 
idea already in Origen, ‘‘ All these the cross of Jesus has, by which He 
ascended on high and took captive a captivity, and descended to the lowest 
parts of the earth . . . and has Himself run to all the earth, reaching to the 
breadth and length of it. And he that is crucified with Christ comprehends 
the breadth,” etc. (Catena, p. 162). Gregory Nyssen also says that St. Paul 
describes the power which controls the whole by the figure of the Cross, τῷ 
σχήματι τοῦ σταυροῦ (Cont. Eunom. Ογαΐξ. iv. p. 582). By the height he 
understands the portion above the crossbeam, by the depth that below ; and 
so St. Augustine, who explains the mystery of the Cross, ‘‘sacramentum 
crucis,” as signifying love in its breadth, hope in its height, patience in its 
length, and humility in its depth. But he was not writing as a commentator. 
According to Severianus, the height alludes to the Lord’s divinity, the depth 
to His humanity, the length and breadth to the extent of the apostolic 
preaching. Jerome is still more fanciful, and finds in the height an allusion 
to the good angels, in the depth to the bad, in the length to men who are on 
the upward path, and in the breadth those on the broad way that leadeth to 


III. 19] PRAYER FOR THE READERS IOI 


destruction. There are other varieties. Such fancies (not altogether extinct 
even in our own days) only deserve notice as a warning of the unprofitable- 
ness of such fanciful methods of interpretation. As Calvin well observes, 
“‘Faec subtilitate sua placent, sed quid ad mentem Pauli?” Nothing, in- 
deed, could be more un-Pauline. 


19. γνῶναί te τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
“ And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge.” 

A 74, Syr. Vulg. read or interpret τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς γνῶσεως, 
“supereminentem scientiae charitatem,” a reading interpreted by 
Grotius as meaning the love which flows from the knowledge 
of Christ. Both external and internal evidence are decisive against 
the reading, which may have originated from misunderstanding of 
the oxymoron. The genitive depends on the notion of comparison 
in ὑπερβ. Comp. Aesch. Prom. 923, βροντῆς ὑπερβάλλοντα κτύπον. 

“ Suavissima haec quasi correctio est,” Bengel. As if the very 
word “know” at once suggested the thought that such knowledge 
was beyond human capacity. “ But even though the love of 
Christ surpasses human knowledge, yet ye shall know it if ye have 
Christ dwelling in you,” Theophylact. There is a relative know- 
ledge which increases in proportion as the believer is filled with the 
spirit of Christ and thereby “ rooted and grounded in love,” for by 
love only is love known. γνῶναι, then, is used in a pregnant sense. 
τὸ γνῶναι, says ‘Theodore Mops., ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπολαῦσαι λέγει (referring 
to Ps. xv. 11). So also Theodoret, δυνατὸν ἡμᾶς διὰ τῆς πίστεως 
καὶ ἀγάπης τῆς πνευματικῆς χάριτος ἀπολαῦσαι καὶ διὰ ταύτης 
καταμαθεῖν. . .. For a similar oxymoron in St. Paul, see Rom. 
1. 20, τὰ ἀορατὰ αὐτοῦ... καθορᾶται. 

A quite different interpretation is adopted by Luther in his 
edition of 1545 (not the earlier), viz. “ to love Christ is better than 
knowledge.” Holzhausen defends a similar view, on the ground 
(amongst others) that to express the other meaning St. Paul would 
have said, as in Phil. il. 4, ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν. But he desired 
to express the thought as an oxymoron, thus making it more 
striking. Dobree renders, “the exceeding love of God in bestow- 
ing on us the knowledge of Christ” (4Advers. 1. p. 573). He gives 
no reason, and it is hard to see how the rendering can be 
defended. 

“The love of Christ,” 24. Christ’s love to us. But knowledge 
of whatever kind is not the ultimate end, therefore he adds, not as 
a parallel clause, but as the end of the whole, ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν 
τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, “that ye may be filled up to all the fulness 
of God.” 

This is not of easy interpretation. Chrysostom gives two 
alternatives, either the +A. τοῦ Θεοῦ is the knowledge that God is 
worshipped in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or he 
urges them to strive ὥστε πληροῦσθαι πάσης ἀρετῆς ἧς πλήρης ἐστιν 


102 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS pees 19 


ὁ @eds. This is rendered by Newman, “of which God is the 
fountain-head,” but has been usually taken to mean “be filled, 
even as God is full” (Alford, Olshausen, Ellicott, Eadie). It 
is indeed added, “each in your degree, but all to your utmost 
capacity”; or, again, “the difference between God and the saint 
will be, not in kind, but in degree and extent.” But there is no 
such restriction in the text ; it is not, “ filled up to your capacity ” 
(note πᾶν), and the expression is one of degree, not of kind. On 
the same principle of interpretation we might defend such an 
expression as “ wise with all the wisdom of God” ; yet the impro- 
priety of this is obvious. Matt. v. 48, ‘ye shall be τέλειοι as (ὡς) 
your heavenly Father is τέλειος, is not in point, for what is there 
referred to is the single virtue of love, which is to be as all- 
embracing as that of God. ‘They who love those that love them 
are incomplete in love ; they who love their enemies are τέλειοι," 
Euthymius, cf. τ Pet. i. 15. To be filled as God is full, could at 
most be set forth as the ideal to be attained or rather approached 
in a future state. When itis urged (by Olsh. and Ellic.) that where 
Christ dwells there πᾶν τὸ πλήρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ is already (Col. ii. 9), 
this is really to confound two distinct interpretations. Oltramare, 
taking πλήρωμα to mean “perfection,” and πληροῦσθαι “to be 
perfected,” understands the words to mean, “that ye may be 
perfect even to the possession of all the perfection of God.” 
“The highest moral ideal that can be presented to him in whose 
heart Christ dwells, who has comprehended the greatness of love, 
and has known the love of God.” 

Theodore Mops. appears to interpret the words of the Church, 
“ita ut et ipsi in portione communis corporis videamini in quod 
vel maxime inhabitat Deus”; and so some moderns, but does 
violence to the language. 

Theodoret interprets : ἵνα τελείως αὐτὸν ἔνοικον δέξησθε ; and this 
has much in its favour. εἰς, then, would be as in il. 21, 22, so that 
ye become the πλήρ. (as the result of loading a ship is that it 
becomes a πλήρωμα). God, then, is that with which they are filled, 
as in i. 23 and iv. 13 it is Christ. So κατοικητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ, il. 22, 
is parallel to κατοικῆσαι τὸν Xp. ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις, ili. 17 (v. Soden). 
But “to be filled with God” is an expression which, though 
capable of defence, would be open to misconception, and has 
no distinct parallel in the N.T. It appears more consonant with 
St. Paul’s language generally to understand 7A. τοῦ Θεοῦ as the 
fulness of the riches of God, all that is ‘“ spiritually communicable 
to the saints, [who are] the ‘ partakers of Divine nature,’ 2 Pet. i. 4” 
(Moule). ‘This is substantially Meyer’s view. 

B has a peculiar reading: ἵνα πληρωθῇ πᾶν, which is also that of 17, 73, 


116, of which, however, 17 reads εἰς ὑμᾶς instead of τοῦ Geo’. Westcott and 
Hort admit the reading of B to their margin, ‘‘ that all the fulness of God 


Tr. 20, 21] DOXOLOGY 103 


may be filled up.” Comp., however, the loss of -re of ἐσφραγίσθητε in B, cap. 
eae 

20, 21. Doxology suggested by the thought of the glorious things 
prayed for. 

20. τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ὧν 
αἰτούμεθα ἢ νοοῦμεν. “ΝΟΥ͂ to Him who is able to do more than 
all abundantly beyond what we ask or think.” 

The object of the prayer was a lofty one ; but, lofty as it is, God 
is able to give more than we ask, and even more than we under- 
stand. Neither the narrowness of our knowledge nor the feeble- 
ness of our prayer will limit the richness of His gifts. Surely 
a ground for this ascription of praise, which gives a solemn close to 
the first portion of the Epistle. 

ὑπέρ is not adverbial; coming as it does close to πάντα, no 
reader could take it otherwise than as a preposition ; besides, as an 
adverb it would be tautological. ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ, which occurs again 
1 Thess. ili. 10, v. 13, is one of those compounds with ὑπέρ 
of which St. Paul was fond, cf. ὑπερλίαν, 2 Cor. ΧΙ. 5 3 ὑπερπερισ- 
σε: Rom. v. 20; 2 Cor. vil. 4. Indeed, St. Mark also has 
ὑπερπερισσῶς, Vi. 37. Ellicott notes that of the twenty-eight words 
compounded with ὑπέρ, twenty-two are found in St. Paul’s Epistles 
and Heb., and twenty of these are found there alone. 

ὧν is not to be connected with πάντα, as there is no difficulty 
about joining it with ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ, which by the idea of compari- 
son can govern the genitive (26. = τούτων a). 

κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν. “ According to (or by 
virtue of) the power that worketh in us.” ἐνεργ. is clearly middle, 
not passive (as Estius). Onthovius, indeed, defends the latter view, 
maintaining that ἐνεργεῖται is always passive in the N.T., even 
Rom. vil. 5; 1 Thess. il. 13; Jas. v. τό (Bibliotheca Bremensis, Classis 
gta, p. 474). According to Winer, St. Paul uses the active of 
personal action, the middle of non-personal. Comp. Col. i. 29. 

21. αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. “To 
Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus.” Son Α ΒΟ 17, 
al, Vulg. Boh., Jerome. But καί is omitted by D> K LP, Syr. 
(both) Arm. Eth. Goth., Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph. Oecum. 
ΠΥ ἃ transpose, and read: ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. 
This transposition is perhaps due to the thought that “ Christ” 
should precede “the Church.” It is not very easy to see why καί 
should have been omitted if genuine ; on the other hand, it is easy 
to see a reason for its insertion. It is, however, hard to resist the 
documentary evidence for the insertion. If καί is omitted we 
understand “in the Church,” in which thanks and praise are 
given, “in Christ Jesus,” not simply “through” ; but as St. Paul so 
often uses this expression, and “in the Lord”; He is not the 
medium merely, but by virtue of His union with the Church it is 


104. THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 1 


in Him that it gives glory to God. Olshausen and Braune, 
with some older commentators, connect ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ with τῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ. The absence of the article is not inconsistent with this, 
but the addition would be superfluous, since the ἐκκλ. can only be 
that which is in Christ Jesus. 

If καί, however, is read, we must apparently interpret ἐν similarly 
in both cases. The Church, then, is that by whose greatness and 
perfection the δόξα of God is exhibited, as it is also exhibited in 
Christ Jesus (v. Soden and Moule). 

εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν. ‘To all genera- 
tions, for ever and ever. Amen.” ‘There seems to be a blending 
of the two formulae γενεαὶ γενεῶν and αἰῶνες, or αἰών, τῶν αἰώνων. 
eis τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν ai. occurs Gal. 1. 5; Phil. iv. 10; τ Tim. i. 17; 
2 Tim. iv. 18, besides the Apocalypse ; εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τῶν αἰώνων in 
3 Esdr. iv. 38; and ἕως τοῦ αἰ. τῶν ai., Dan. vii. 18 (Theodot.). 
There seems to be no difference in the meaning. ‘The phrase is 
understood by Meyer and others as designating the future αἰών, 
which begins with the Parousia, as the superlative age of all 
ages. It seems much more natural to explain it as the αἰών which 
includes many αἰῶνες, “‘in omnes generationes quas complectitur 
6 αἰών, qui terminatur in τοὺς αἰῶνας perpetuos,” Bengel. But 
when we consider the difficulty of giving a logical analysis which 
shall be also grammatical of our own “world without end,” we 
may be content to accept the meaning without seeking to analyse 
the expression. 

IV. 1ff. He now passes, as usually in his Epistles, after the 
doctrinal exposition to the practical exhortation, in the course of 
which, however, he is presently drawn back (ver. 4) to doctrinal 
teaching to support his exhortation to unity. 

1-4. Exhortation to live in a manner worthy of their calling, in 
lowliness, patience, love, and unity. 

1. παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν Κυρίῳ. “1 therefore, 
the prisoner in the Lord, entreat you.” οὖν may indicate inference 
from the immediately preceding verse, or more probably (since it 
is the transition between two sections of the Epistle) from the 
whole former part, ὃ δέσμιος ἐν K. This is not to excite their 
sympathy, or as desiring that they should cheer him in his 
troubles by their obedience; for, as Theodoret remarks, “he 
exults in his bonds for Christ’s sake more than a king in his 
diadem”; but rather to add force to his exhortation. “In the 
Lord” for “in Domini vinculis constrictus est qui ἐν Κυρίῳ ὦν 
vinctus est,” Fritzsche (om. 11. p. 84). It does not signify “for 
Christ’s sake”; compare συνεργὸς ἐν Χριστῷ, Rom. xvi. 3, 93 
ἀγαπητὸς ἐν Κυρίῳ, 76. 8. It assigns rather the special character 
which distinguished this captivity from others. 

παρακαλῶ may be either “exhort” or ‘‘entreat, beseech” ; 


IV. 2] PRACTICAL EXHORTATION 105 


and in both senses it is used either with an infinitive or with a 
conjunction (iva or ὅπως). Either sense would suit here, but 
“exhort” seems too weak for the connexion ; comp. Rom. xi. 1, 
where it is followed by “by the mercies of God,” a strong form of 
appeal. More than exhortation is implied, especially as it is an 
absolute duty to which he calls them. 

ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε. “ΤῸ walk worthily 
of the calling wherewith ye were called.” ἧς attracted for ἥν the 
cognate accusative ; cf.i.6; 2 Cor.1.4. True, the dative might be 
used with καλεῖν (see 2 Tim. 1. 9); but the attraction of the dative 
would not be in accordance with N.T. practice. 

2. μετὰ πάσης ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ πρᾳότητος. “ With all lowli- 
ness and meekness.” pera is used of accompanying actions or 
dispositions (see Acts xvil. 11 ; 2 Cor. vii. 15); πάσης belongs to 
both substantives. What is ταπεινοφροσύνη Chrysostom says it 
Is ὅταν τις μέγας ὧν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινοῖ ; and elsewhere, ὅταν μεγάλα Tis 
ἑαυτῷ συνειδώς, μηδὲν μέγα περὶ αὑτοῦ φαντάζηται. ‘Trench says it is 
rather esteeming ourselves small, inasmuch as we are so, the 
thinking truly, and therefore lowlily of ourselves; adding that 
Chrysostom is bringing in pride again under the disguise of 
humility. In this he is followed by Alford and other English com- 
mentators. Yet surely this is not right. A man may be small, 
and know himself to be so, and yet not be humble. But every 
man cannot truly think himself smaller than his fellows ; nor can 
this be the meaning of Phil. 1. 2. Ifa man is really greater than 
others in any quality or attainment, moral, intellectual, or spiritual, 
does the obligation of humility bind him to think falsely that he 
is less than they? It is no doubt true that the more a man 
advances in knowledge or in spiritual insight, the higher his ideal 
becomes, and so the more sensibly he feels how far he comes 
short of it. This is one aspect of humility, but it is not raze 
νοφροσύνη. And St. Paul is speaking of humility as a Christian 
social virtue. St. Paul declares himself to be not a whit inferior to οἱ 
ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι, and in the same breath says that he humbled 
himself; he even exhorts his readers to imitate him, and yet he 
attributes this very virtue to himself, Acts xx. 19. And what 
of our Lord Himself, who was meek and lowly, πρᾷος καὶ ταπεινός, 
in heart? One who knows himself greater in relation to others, 
but who is contented to be treated as if he were less, such a 
one is certainly entitled to be called humble-minded ; he exhibits 
ταπεινοφροσύνη. Chrysostom’s definition, then, is far truer than 
Trench’s ; it only errs by limiting the possibility of the virtue to 
those who are great. 

This is a peculiarly Christian virtue. The word occurs in 
Josephus and Epictetus, but only in a bad sense as = “meanness of 
spirit.” πρᾳότης is understood by some expositors as meekness 


106 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS {Iv. 3 


toward God and toward men; the spirit “which never rises in in- 
subordination against God, nor in resentment against man ἢ (Eadie); 
but its use in the N.T. does not justify the introduction of the 
former idea ; compare 1 Cor. iv. 21, “Shall I come to you with a 
rod, or in the spirit of zp.”? 2 Tim. 11. 25, “correcting in zp.” ; 
Tit. ili. 2, “showing all zp. towards all men.” Resignation toward 
God and meekness toward man are distinct though allied virtues. 
The same virtues are mentioned in Col. ili. 12. 

μετὰ μακροθυμίας, “with long-suffering,” connected by some 
expositors with the following ; but ἀνεχόμενοι is already defined by 
ἐν ἀγάπῃ, which is best connected with that word. ‘The repetition 
of μετά is rather in favour of than adverse to the parallelism with 
the preceding, raz. and πρᾳ. being taken more closely together as 
being nearly allied virtues. 

μακροθυμία has two senses: steadfastness, especially in endur- 
ing suffering, as in Plutarch, ‘‘ Never ask from God freedom from 
trouble, but paxpobvpia” (Luc. 32) cf. Jas. v. 10; Heb. vi. 12; 
but generally in N.T. slowness in avenging wrongs, forbearance, 
explained, in fact, in the following words. Fritzsche defines it, 
“ Clementia, qua irae temperans delictum non statim vindices, 
sed ei qui peccaverit poenitendi locum relinquas” (Rom. 1. p. 
98). Compare 1 Cor. ΧΙ. 4, ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ, χρηστεύεται. 
In his comment on that passage, Chrysostom rather curiously 
SayS: μακρόθυμος διὰ τοῦτο λέγεται ἐπειδὴ μακράν Twa καὶ μεγάλην 
ἔχει ψυχήν. 

ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπῃ. “ Forbearing one another in love.” 
This mutual forbearance is the expression in action of μακροθυμία. 
It involves bearing with one another’s weaknesses, not ceasing to 
love our neighbour or friend because of those faults in him which 
perhaps offend or displease us. 

The participles fall into the nominative by a common idiom, 
ὑμεῖς being the logical subject of ἀξίως περιπατ.; cf. ch. 11. 18 and 
Col. 1. το. There is no need, then, with some commentators, to 
supply ἐστέ or γίνεσθε. 

3. σπουδάζοντες τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν TO συνδέσμῳ 
τῆς εἰρήνης, “giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the 
bond of peace.” ‘“‘ Endeavouring,” as in the AV., would imply the 
possibility, if not likelihood, of the endeavour failing. Trench (Oz 
the Authorised Version, p. 44) says that in the time of the trans- 
lators ‘‘endeavouring” meant “giving all diligence.” But in Acts 
xvi. 10 the word is used to render ἐζητήσαμεν, and except in this 
and two other passages it is not used for σπουδάζειν, which, in 
Tit. iii, 12 and 2 Pet. 11. 14, is rendered “be dileent”\;amye) ame 
iv..9; 21, “do thy diligence”: 2 Tim. i. 15, “study.” iibevories 
passages where the rendering is “endeavour” are 1 Thess. 11. 17, 
where the endeavour did fail, and 2 Pet. 1. 15, where failure might 


Iv. 4] UNITY OF THE CHURCH 107 


have appeared possible. Theophylact well expresses the force 
of the word here: οὐκ ἀπόνως ἰσχύσομεν εἰρηνεύειν. ‘The clause 
expresses the end to be attained by the exercise of the virtues 
mentioned in ver. 2. 

τηρεῖν, “to preserve,” for it is supposed already to exist. 
“Etiam ubi nulla fissura est, monitis opus est,” Bengel. The 
existence of divisions, therefore, is not suggested. ‘The unity of 
the Spirit,” ze. the unity which the Spirit has given us. “The 
Spirit unites those who are separated by race and customs,” Chrys., 
and so most recent commentators ; and this seems to be proved 
by ἕν Πνεῦμα in the following verse. But Calvin, Estius, and 
others, following Anselm and ps-Ambrose, understand zv. here of 
the human spirit, ‘“‘animorum concordia.” De Wette, again, thinks 
that the analogy of ἑνότης τῆς πίστεως, in Ver. 13, 15 against the 
received interpretation, and accordingly interprets “the unity of 
the spirit of the Christian community,” taking πν. in ver. 4 
similarly. Comp. Grotius, “‘unitatem ecclesiae quae est corpus 
spirituale.” (Theodore Mops. agrees with Chrys. The quotation 
in Ellicott belongs to the next verse.) 

ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης. Genitive of apposition ; peace is 
the bond in which the unity is kept; cf. σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας, Acts 
Vili. 23, and σύνδεσμος εὐνοίας, Plut. Mum. 6. The fact that love 
is called the bond of peace in Col. iii. 14 does not justify us in 
taking the words here as meaning “love,” an interpretation adopted, 
probably, in consequence of ἐν being taken instrumentally ; in 
which case, as peace could not be the instrument by which the 
unity of the Spirit is maintained, but is itself maintained thereby, 
the genitive could not be one of apposition. But the ἐν is parallel 
to the ἐν before ἀγάπῃ, and in any case it is not by the bond of 
peace that the unity of the Spirit is kept. 

4-11. Essential unity of the Church. It ts one Body, animated 
by one Spirit, baptized into the name of the one Lord, and all being 
children of the same Lather. But the members have their different 
gifts and offices. 

4. ἕν σῶμα καὶ ἕν Πνεῦμα καθὼς kal ἐκλήθητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι τῆς 
κλήσεως ὑμῶν. ‘One Body, and one Spirit, even as ye were called 
in one hope of your calling.” This and the two following verses 
express the objective unity belonging to the Christian dispensa- 
tion in all its aspects. First, the oneness of the Church itself: 
one Body, one Spirit, one Hope. Next, the source and instru- 
ments of that unity, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; and 
lastly, the unity of the Divine Author, who is defined, in a three- 
fold manner, as over all, through all, and in all. 

Although there is no connecting particle, and ydp is certainly 
not to be supplied, the declaration is introduced as supplying a 
motive for the exhortation, but the absence of any such particie 


) 


108 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 5 


makes it more vivid and impressive. We need not even supply 
ἐστί; it is rather to be viewed as an abrupt and emphatic reminder 
of what the readers well knew, as if the writer were addressing them 
in person. Still less are we to supply, with Theophylact and 
Oecumenius, “ Be ye,” or with others, “Ye are,” neither of which 
would agree with vv. 5 and 6. 

One Body ; namely, the Church itself, so often thus described ; 
one Spirit, the Holy Spirit, which dwells in and is the vivifying 
Spirit of that body ; cf. 1 Cor. xii. 13. The parallelism εἷς Κύριος, 
εἷς Θεός seems to require this. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 4-6, where τὸ 
αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα, ὁ αὐτὸς Κύριος, 6 αὐτὸς Θεός. Chrysostom, however, 
interprets differently ; indeed, he gives choice of several interpreta- 
tions, none of them agreeing with this. “Showing (he says) that 
from one body there will be one spirit; or that there may be one 
body but not one spirit, as if one should be a friend of heretics ; 
or that he shames them from that, that is, ye who have received 
one spirit and been made to drink from one fountain ought not to be 
differently minded ; or by spirit here he means readiness, προθυμία." 

καθώς 15 not used by Attic writers, who employ καθάπερ or 
καθό. It is called Alexandrian, but is not confined to Alexandrian 
or biblical writers. 

ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι. ἐν is not instrumental, as Meyer holds. Comp. 
καλεῖν ἐν χάριτι, Gal. 1. 6 ; ἐν εἰρήνῃ, 1 Cor. vil. 153 ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, 
1 Thess. iv. 7; nor is it=eis or ἐπί, as Chrysostom. 

It is frequently said in this and similar cases that it indicates 
the “element” in which something takes place. But this is no 
explanation, it merely suggests an indefinite figure, which itself 
requires explanation. Indeed, the word “element” or “sphere” 
seems to imply something previously existing. What ἐν indicates 
is that the hope was an essential accompaniment of their calling, 
a “conditio” (not “condition” in the English sense). It differs 
from εἰς in this, that the latter preposition would suggest that the 
“hope,” “peace,” etc., followed the calling in time. In fact, the 
expression εἴς τι involves a figure taken from motion; he who is 
called is conceived as leaving the place in which the call reached 
him. But κλῆσις as applied to the Christian calling is pregnant, 
it includes the idea of the state into which the calling brings those 
who are called. ““ἐν exprimit indolem rei,” Bengel on τ Thess. 
iv. 7; so also the verb. Hence such an expression as κλητοὶ ἅγιοι. 
They are so called as to be ἐν ἐλπίδι, ἐν εἰρήνῃ, by the very fact of 
their calling, not merely as a result of it. Hence, also, we are not 
to interpret “hope of your calling,” or “the hope arising from 
your calling,” which is hardly consistent, by the way, with the idea 
that hope is the “element.” It is rather the hope belonging to 
your calling. 

5. els Κύριος, pia πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα. “One Lord, one Faith, 


EVs 6; 7] UNITY OF THE CHURCH 109 


one Baptism.” One Lord, Christ ; one faith, of which He is the 
object, one in its nature and essence ; and one baptism, by which 
we are brought into the profession of this faith. 

The question has been asked, Why is the other sacrament not 
mentioned? and various answers have been given, of which the 
one that is most to the point, perhaps, is that it is not a ground or 
antecedent condition of unity, but an expression of it. Yet it 
must be admitted that it would supply a strong motive for pre- 
serving unity, as in 1 Cor. x. 17. Probably, as it was not essential 
to mention it, the omission is due in part to the rhythmical 
arrangement of three triads. 

6. εἷς Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων. ‘One God and Father of all.” 
Observe the climax: first, the Church, then Christ, then God; also the 
order of the three Persons—Spirit, Lord, Father. Ellicott quotes 
from Cocceius: ‘‘Etiamsi baptizamur in nomen Patris Filii et Spiritus 
Sancti, et filum unum Dominum nominamus, tamen non credimus 
nisi in unum Deum.” It is arbitrary to limit πάντων to the faith- 
ful. It is true the context speaks only of Christians, but then 
πάντες has not been used. ‘The writer advances from the Lord of 
the Church to the God and Father of all. For this notion of 
Fatherhood see Pearson, Ox the Creed, Art. τ. 

ὃ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν. ‘Who is over all, and 
through all, and in all.” The Received Text adds ὑμῖν, with a few 
cursives, and Chrys. (Comm. not text) Theoph. Oec. ἡμῖν is added 
in DGKL, Vulg. Syr. (both) Arm. Goth., Iren. 

There is no pronoun in SABC P 17 672, Ign. Orig. a/Z, It was, 
no doubt, added as a gloss, πᾶσιν seeming to require a limitation. 

As πᾶσιν is undoubtedly masculine, it is most natural to take 
πάντων in both places as masculine also. Ver. 7 individualises the 
πάντες by ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν. Erasmus and some later commentators, 
however, have taken the first and second πάντων as neuter, whilst 
the Vulg. so takes the second. 

ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων ; Cf. Rom. ix. 5, 6 ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς 
τοῦς αἰῶνας. ‘Over all,” as ἃ sovereign ruler. Τί is less easy to 
say what are the distinct ideas meant to be expressed by διά and 
ev respectively. The latter is more individualising, the indwelling 
is an indwelling in each; whereas διὰ πάντων expresses a relation 
to the whole body, through the whole of which the influence and 
power of God are diffused. It is a sustaining and working 
presence. ‘This does not involve the supplying of ἐνεργῶν. 

We are not to suppose a direct reference to the Trinity in these 
three prepositional clauses, for here it is the Father that is specially 
mentioned in parallelism to the Spirit and the Son, previously 
spoken of. 

7. ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς δωρεᾶς 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ. “ But to each one of us the grace was given according 


IIO THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 8 


to the measure of the gift of Christ.” He passes from the relation 
to the whole to the relation to the individual. In the oneness of 
the body, etc., there is room for diversity, and no one is overlooked ; 
each has his own position. Compare Rom. xii. 4-6; 1 Cor. 
ΧΙ. 4ff., where the conception is carried out in detail. “The 
grace,” 2.6. the grace which he has. The article is omitted in 
B D* GL P*%, but is present in 8 AC Ὁ K ΡΟΣ most others. The 
omission is easy to account for from the adjoining ἡ in ἐδόθη. 
“ According to the measure,” etc., z.e. according to what Christ has 
given; cf. Rom. xii. 6, “gifts differing according to the grace that 
is given to us.” 

8. Διὸ λέγε: “Wherefore it saith”=“it is said.” If any 
substantive is to be supplied it is 7 γραφή ; but the verb may well 
be taken impersonally, just as in colloquial English one may often 
hear: “it says,” or the like. Many expositors, however, supply 6 
Θεός. Meyer even says, ‘‘ Who says it is obvious of itself, namely, 
God, whose word the Scripture is.” Similarly Alford and Ellicott. 
If it were St. Paul’s habit to introduce quotations from the O.T., 
by whomsoever spoken in the original text, with the formula 6 Θεὸς 
λέγει, then this supplement here might be defended. But it is not. 
In quoting he sometimes says ae frequently 7 γραφὴ λέγει, at 
other times Δαβὶδ «λέγει, Ἡσαΐας λέγε. There is not a single 
instance in which ὁ Θεός is either expressed or implied as the 
subject, except where in the original context God is the speaker, 
as in Rom. ix. 15. Even when that is the case he does not 
hesitate to use a different subject, as in Rom. x. 19, 20, ‘‘ Moses 
saith,” “Isaiah is very bold, and saith”; Rom. ix. 17, “The 
Scripture saith to Pharaoh.” 

This being the case, we are certainly not justified in forcing 
upon the apostle here and in ch. v. 14 a form of expression con- 
sistent only with the extreme view of verbal inspiration. When 
Meyer (followed by Alford and Ellicott) says that 7 γραφή must 
not be supplied unless it is given by the context, the reply is 
obvious, namely, that, as above stated, 7 γραφὴ λέγει does, in fact, 
often occur, and therefore the apostle might have used it here, 
whereas ὁ Θεὸς λέγει does not occur (except in cases unlike this), 
and we have reason to believe could not be used by St. Paul here. 
It is some additional confirmation of this that both here and in 
ch. v. 14 (if that is a biblical quotation) he does not hesitate to 
make important alterations. This is the view taken by Braune, 
Macpherson, Moule ; the latter, however, adding that for St. Paul 
“the word of the Scripture and the word of its Author are con- 
vertible terms.” 

It is objected that although φησί is used impersonally, λέγει is 
not. The present passage and ver. 14 are sufficient to prove the 
usage for St. Paul, and there are other passages in his Epistles 


IV. 8] DIVERSITY OF GIFTS III 


where this sense is at least applicable ; cf. Rom. xv. ro, where λέγει 
is parallel to γέγραπται in ver. 9 ; Gal. ili. 16, where it corresponds 
to ἐρρήθησαν. But, in fact, the impersonal use of φησί in Greek 
authors is quite different, namely = φασί, “they say” (so_xCor. 
x. 10). Classical authors had no opportunity of using λέγει as it is 
used here, as they did not possess any collection of writings which 
could be referred to as ἢ γραφή, or by any like word. They could 
say: ὃ νόμος λέγει, and τὸ λεγόμενον. 

᾿Αναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ἠχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν καὶ ἔδωκε δόματα 
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. “When he ascended on high He led a captivity 
captive, and gave gifts unto men.” ‘The words appear to be taken 
from Ps. Ixviii. 18 (where the verbs are in the second person) ; but 
there is an important divergence in the latter clause, which in the 
Hebrew is, ‘Thou has received gifts among men,” the meaning 
being, received tributary gifts amongst the vanquished, or according 
to another interpretation, gifts consisting in the persons of the 
surrendered enemies (Ibn Ezra, Ewald). The Septuagint also 
has ἔλαβες δόματα ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, or, according to another reading, 
ἀνθρώποις. Various attempts have been made to account for the 
divergence. Chrysostom simply says the one is the same as the 
other, τοῦτο ταὐτόν ἐστιν ἐκείνῳ ; and so Theophylact, adding, “ for 
God giving the gifts receives in return the service.” Meyer, 
followed by Alford and Eadie, maintains that the Hebrew verb 
often has a proleptic signification, ‘‘to fetch,” z.e. to take in order 
to give. The apostle, says Eadie, seizes on the latter portion of 
the sense, and renders—édwxe. Most of the passages cited for 
this are irrelevant to the present purpose, the verb being followed 
by what we may call the dative of a pronoun, e.g. Gen. xv. 9, 
“Take for me”; xxvii. 13, “Fetch me them.” In such cases it is 
plain that the notion of subsequent giving is in the “mihi,” not in 
the verb, or rather the dative is simply analogous to the dativus 
commodt. ‘This use is quite parallel to that of the English “ get.” 
In xvii. 5, “I will get a piece of bread and comfort ye your 
hearts,” the pronoun is omitted as needless, the words that follow 
expressing the purpose for which the bread was to be fetched. In 
xlii, 16, “Send one of you and let him fetch your brother,” there is 
no idea of giving. In no case is giving any part of the idea of the 
Hebrew verb any more than of the English “get” or “fetch.” 
But whatever may be thought of this « proleptic use,” this is not 
the sense of the verb in the psalm, so that it would not really help. 
The psalm speaks of receiving (material) gifts from men; the 
apostle, of giving (spiritual) gifts to men. Macpherson says, ‘‘ The 
modification is quite justifiable, on the ground that Christ, to 
whom the words are applied, receives gifts among men only that 
He may bestow them upon men.” But Christ did not receive 
amongst men the gifts which He is here said to bestow. The 


112 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 8 


Pulpit Commentary states: “Whereas in the psalm it is said gave 
gifts 29 men” [which is not in the psalm, but in the Epistle], as 
modified by the apostle it is said “vece’ved gifts for men,” which is 
neither one nor the other, but a particular interpretation of the 
psalm adopted in the English version. Ellicott, admitting that the 
difference is not diminished by any of the proposed reconciliations, 
takes refuge in the apostolic authority of St. Paul. ‘‘ The inspired 
apostle, by a slight (Ὁ) change of language and substitution of ἔδωκε 


for the more dubious npd, succinctly, suggestively, and authorita- 


tively unfolds.” But he does not profess to be interpreting (as in 
Rom. x. 6, 7, 8), but quoting. Such a view, indeed, would open 
the door to the wildest freaks of interpretation; they might not, 
indeed, command assent as inspired, but they could never be 
rejected as unreasonable. ‘The change here, far from being slight, 
is just in that point in which alone the quotation is connected 
either with what precedes or with what follows. 

The supposition that St. Paul does not intend either to 
quote exactly or to interpret, but in the familiar Jewish fashion 
adapts the passage to his own use, knowing that those of 
his readers who were familiar with the psalm would recognise 
the alteration and see the purpose of it, namely, that instead 
of receiving gifts of homage Christ gives His gifts to men, 
is not open to any serious objection, since he does not found 
any argument on the passage. So Theodore Mops., who re- 
marks that ὑπαλλάξας τὸ ἔλαβε δόματα οὕτως ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ κείμενον, 
ἔδωκε δόματα εἶπε, τῇ ὑπαλλαγῇ περὶ τὴν οἰκείαν ,Χρησάμενος 
ἀκολουθίαν" ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τὸ ἔλαβεν 7) ἥρμοττεν, ἐν- 
ταῦθα δὲ τῷ προκειμένῳ τὸ ἔδωκεν ἀκόλουθον ἢ nV. As Oltramare 
observes: Paul wishes to speak of the spiritual gifts granted to the 
Christian in the measure of the gift of Christ, exalted to heaven. 
An expression of Scripture occurs to him, which strikes him as 
being “16 mot de la situation.” Depicting originally the triumph 
of God, it strikes him as expressing well (#u¢atis mutandis) the 
triumph of Christ, but he does not identify either the facts or the 
persons. It is, however, remarkable that the same interpretation 
of the words of the psalm is given in the Syriac Version and in the 
Targum. ‘The former may have followed St. Paul, as the Arabic 
and Ethiopic, although made from the Septuagint, have done ; 
and it has been suggested that the Targumist, finding a difficulty, 
followed the Syriac,—an improbable supposition. In his expansion 
he interprets the words of Moses, “Thou didst ascend to the 
firmament, Moses the prophet, thou didst take a captivity 
captive, thou didst teach the words of the law, thou gavest gifts 
to the sons of men.” This Targum as we have it is of compara- 
tively late date. But if we may assume, as no doubt we may, that 


IV. 8] DIVERSITY OF GIFTS 113 


it is giving us here an ancient interpretation, we have a solution of 
the difficulty so far as St. Paul is concerned; he simply made use 
of the Rabbinical interpretation as being suitable to his purpose. 
Compare 1 Cor. x. 4. No doubt the question remains, What led 
the Targumist to take this view of the passage? Hitzig suggests 
that as the receiving of gifts seemed not consonant with the 
majesty of God, the paraphrast mentally substituted for mpd the 
verb pbn, which has the same letters in a different order, and 
means “to divide, give a portion,” etc. This verb is rendered 
δίδωσιν by the Sept. in Gen. xlix. 27 (EV. “divide”), while in 
2 Chron. xxvill. 21, where it occurs in an otherwise unexampled 
sense “plunder” (EV. “took a portion out of”), the Sept. has 
ἔλαβεν (τὰ ἐν) The feeling that prompted the paraphrast here 
shows itself also in Rashi’s comment, “took, that thou mightest 
give.” 

This renders needless a recourse to the supposition that the 
quotation is from a Christian hymn, which borrowed from the 
psalm. ‘The objection raised to this and to the preceding view 
from the use of λέγει, has no force except on the assumption that 
Θεός is to be supplied; and, in fact, in ver. 14 many expositors 
suppose that it is a hymn that is quoted in the same manner. 
Nor can it be truly alleged that St. Paul here treats the words as 
belonging to canonical Scripture, for he draws no inference from 
them, as we shall see. Indeed, if he himself had altered them, 
instead of adopting an existing alteration, it would be equally 
impossible for him to argue from the altered text as if it were 
canonical. 

ηχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν. ‘Took captive a body of captives,” 
the cognate accusative, abstract for concrete, as the same word is 
used ini Esdr. v. 45 and Judith ii. 9. We have the same expression 
in the song of Deborah: ‘ Arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity 
captive, thou son of Abinoam,” judg. v. 12, which is perhaps the 
source of the expression in the psalm. The interpretation adopted 
in a popular hymn, “captivity is captive led,” as if “ captivity” 
meant the power that took captive, is quite untenable, and such a 
use of the abstract is foreign to Hebrew thought. 

Who are these captives? Chrysostom replies: The enemies 
of Christ, viz. Satan, sin, and death. In substance this interpreta- 
tion is no doubt correct, but it is unnecessary to define the 
enemies; the figure is general, that of a triumphant conqueror 
leading his conquered enemies in his train. Compare Col. ii. 15. 
To press the figure further would lead us into difficulties. These 
enemies are not yet finally destroyed, ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται 6 
θάνατος (τ Cor. xv. 25). 

Theodoret interprets the “captives” as the redeemed (as 
desea bad already done), namely, as having been captives of the 


14 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 9 


devil, οὐ yap ἐλευθέρους ὄντας ἡμᾶς ἠχμαλώτευσεν, GAN ὑπὸ τοῦ 
διαβόλου γεγενημένους ἀντῃηχμαλώτευσεν, καὶ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῖν 
ἐδωρήσατο; and so many moderns. But this does not agree 
with the construction by which the αἰχμαλωσία must be the 
result of the action of the verb. Besides, the captives are 
distinguished from ἄνθρωποι. The same objections hold against 
the view that the captives are the souls of the righteous 
whom Christ delivered from Hades (Lyra, Estius). 

“And gave gifts.” καὶ is omitted in N* A C* D* ἘΠ τ Ὡ: 
but inserted in 8° B ΟΣ and* D°K LP, a/. Syr. A tendency to 
assimilate to the passage in the psalm appears in the reading 
ἠχμαλώτευσαις in A L and several MSS., which nevertheless read 
ἔδωκεν. For the gifts compare Acts ii. 33. ὁ 

9. τὸ δὲ ᾿Ανέβη τί ἐστιν εἰ μὴ ὅτι Kal κατέβη εἰς TA κατώτερα 
μέρη τῆς γῆς. “Now that He ascended, what is it but that He 
also descended into the lower parts of the earth?” 


There is here a very important variety of reading— 

κατέβη without πρῶτον is the reading of §* AC* Ὁ G 17 672, Boh. Sahid. 
Eth. Amiat., Iren. Orig. Chrys. (Comm.) Aug. Jerome. 

κατέβη πρῶτον is read in 8° BC’ K LP, most mss. Vulg. Goth. Syr. 
(both) Arm., Theodoret. 

The weight of authority is decidedly on the side of omission. Transcrip- 
tional evidence points the same way. The meaning which presented itself 
on the surface was that Christ who ascended had had His original seat in 
heaven, and that what the apostle intended, therefore, was that He descended 
before He ascended ; hence πρῶτον would naturally suggest itself to the mind 
of a reader. On the other hand, it is not easy to see why it should be 
omitted. Reiche, indeed, takes the opposite view. The word, he says, 
might seem superfluous, since both in ver. ὃ and ver. 10 we have ἀναβὰς εἰς 
ὕψος without πρῶτον ; or, again, unsuitable, since Christ descended but once, 
supposing, namely, that the reference to ἀναβάς was missed. He thinks 
mpwrov all but necessary to the argument of the apostle. This is just what 
some early copyists thought, and it is a consideration much more likely to 
have affected them than the opposite one, that the word was superfluous. It 
is rejected by most critics, but Westcott and Hort admit it to a place in the 
margin. 

μέρη after κατώτερα has the authority οἵ ABCD°KLP, while it is 
omitted by D* G (not ἢ. The versions and Fathers are divided. The word 
is read in Vulg. Boh. Arm. Syr-Pesh., Chrys. Theodoret, Aug., but omitted 
by Goth. Syr. (Sch.) Eth., Iren. Theodotus. The insertion or omission makes 
no difference in the sense. Most recent critical editors retain the word. 
Tischendorf rejected it in his seventh, but restored it in his eighth edition, 
Alford, Ellicott, and Meyer pronounce against it; the last-mentioned 
suggesting that it is a gloss due to the old explanation of the descent into 
hell, in order to mark the place as subterranean. 


τὸ δὲ ᾿Ανέβη, t.e. not the word ἀνέβη, which had not occurred, 
but that which is implied in ἀναβάς. τί ἐστιν εἰ μή, .7.X., 2.6. “ what 
does this mean but,” etc. τὰ κατώτερα τῆς γῆς. The genitive 
may be either partitive, the lower as distinguished from the higher 
parts of the earth, or of apposition, the lower regions, z.e. those of 


IV. 9] DIVERSITY OF GIFTS 115 


the earth. With the former interpretation we may understand either 
death simply, as Chrysostom and the other Greeks, τὰ κάτω μέρη 
τῆς γῆς τὸν θάνατόν φησιν, ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὑπονοίας, quoting 
Gen. xliv. 29; Ps. exlii. 7; or Hades, as the place where departed 
spirits live, which is the view of Tertullian, Irenaeus, Jerome, and 
many moderns, including Bengel, Olshausen, Meyer (later editions), 
Alford, Ellicott, Barry. 

But there are serious objections to this. First, if the apostle had 
meant to say that Christ descended to a depth below which there 
was no deeper, as He ascended to a height above which was none 
higher, he would doubtless have used the superlative. τὰ κατώτερα 
μέρη τῆς γῆς, if the genitive is partitive, could mean “the low-lying 
regions of the earth,” in opposition to τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη (Acts 
xix. 1). Meyer, indeed, takes the genitive as depending on the 
comparative ; but this would be an awkward way of expressing 
what would more naturally have been expressed by an adverb. 
τὰ κατώτατα τῆς γῆς Occurs in the Sept. Ps. Ixili. 9, cxxxix. 15 
(κατωτάτω) ; but in the former place the words mean death and 
destruction ; in the latter they figuratively denote what is hidden, 
the place of formation of the embryo. The corresponding Hebrew 
phrase is found in Ezek. xxxii. 18, 24, referring to death and 
destruction, but rendered βάθος τῆς γῆς. Cf. Matt. xi. 23, where 
ἄδου is used similarly. Such passages would support Chrysostom’s 
view rather than that under consideration. But, secondly, all 
these Old Testament expressions are poetic figures, and in a mere 
statement of fact like the present, St. Paul would hardly have given 
such a material local designation to the place of departed spirits, 
especially in connexion with the idea of Christ filling all things. 
Thirdly, the antithesis is between earth and heaven, between an 
ascent from earth to heaven, and a descent which is therefore 
probably from heaven to earth. Some, indeed, who adopt this 
view understand the descent as from heaven, some as from earth. 
For the argument from the connexion, see what follows. 

For these reasons it seems preferable to take “the lower 
parts of the earth” as=‘“‘this lower earth.” Those who adopt 
this view generally assume that the descent preceded the ascent, 
and therefore understand by the descent, the Incarnation. This 
view, however, is not free from difficulty. St. Paul is speaking of 
the unity of the whole on the one hand, and of the diversity of 
individual gifts on the other. The latter is the topic in ver. 7 
and again in ver. 11. To what purpose would be an interpolation 
such as this? It is not brought in to prove the heavenly pre- 
existence of Christ; that is assumed as known; for ascent to heaven 
does not imply descent thence, except on that assumption. And 
why the emphatic assertion of the identity of Him who ascended 
with Him who had previously descended, which was self-evident ? 


116 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS  ([IV..10) 11 


But, in fact, this ascension is not what is in question, but the 
giving of gifts; what had to be shown was, that a descent was 
necessary, in order that He who ascended should give gifts. ‘The 
descent, then, was contemporaneous with the giving, and, therefore, 
subsequent to the ascent. This seems to be indicated by the καί 
before κατέβης It seems hardly possible to take καὶ κατέβη 
otherwise than as expressing something subsequent to ἀνέβη. 
The meaning then is, that the ascent would be without an object, 
unless it were followed by a descent. This is the descent of 
Christ to His Church alluded to in 11. 17, “came and preached” ; 
in 111. 17, “that Christ may dwell in your hearts”; and which we 
also find in John xiv. 23, “we will come to Him”; also 2d. 3 and 
xvi. 22. It is now clear why it was necessary to assert that ὃ 
καταβάς was the same as 6 ἀναβάς. This interpretation is ably 
maintained by v. Soden. 

10. ὁ καταβὰς αὐτός ἐστιν καὶ 6 ἀναβὰς ὑπεράνω πάντων τῶν 
οὐρανῶν ἵνα πληρώσῃ τὰ tavta. “He Himself that descended 
is also He that ascended high above all the heavens, that He 
might fill all things.” 

αὐτός is not “the same,” which would be ὃ αὐτός, but emphatic. 
ov yap ἄλλος κατελήλυθε καὶ ἄλλος ἀνελήλυθεν, Theodoret. 

“All the heavens” is probably an allusion to the seven 
heavens of the Jews. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2, τρίτος ovpaves, and 
Heb. iv. 14, διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, “that He might fill all 
things.” 

This has sometimes been understood to mean “that He might 
fill the universe,” as when we read in Jer. xxiii. 24, μὴ οὐχὶ τὸν 
οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ἐγὼ πληρῶ; But how can the occupation of a 
special place in heaven have for its object presence throughout 
the universe? Moreover, this does not agree with the context, 
which refers to the gifts to men. In fact, in order to explain this 
connexion, the omnipresence is resolved by some commentators 
into the presence everywhere of His gifts (Harless), or else of His 
government (Chrys, a/.). A similar result is reached by others, who 
take πληρώσῃ as meaning directly “fill with His gifts” (De Wette, 
Bleek, a/.), τὰ πάντα being either the universe, or men, or members 
of the Church. But πληροῦν by itself can hardly mean “fill with 
gifts.” Ruckert explains, ‘accomplish all,” viz. all that He had to 
accomplish. But the words must clearly be interpreted in accord- 
ance with i. 23, τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου, which they obviously 
repeat. Oltramare interprets, “that He might render all perfect, 
and (in conformity with this purpose), He gave,” etc. 

11. καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς 
δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους. “And He Him- 
self gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, 
some as pastors and teachers,” 


IV. 11] DIVERSITY OF GIFTS 117 


ἔδωκεν is not a Hebraism for ἔθετο (1 Cor. xii. 28); it is 
obviously chosen because of ἔδωκεν δόματα in the quotation, as if 
the apostle had said, “the gifts He gave were,” etc. It is not 
merely the fact of the institution of the offices that he wishes to 
bring into view, but the fact that they were gifts to the Church. 
Christ gave the persons ; the Church appointed to the office (Acts 
xili. 2, xiv. 23). The enumeration here must be compared with 
that in 1 Cor. xii. 28, “God hath set some in the Church, first, 
apostles ; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then miraculous 
powers, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, divers kinds of 
tongues.” There the order of the first three is expressly defined ; 
the latter gifts are not mentioned here, perhaps, as not expressing 
offices, but special gifts which were only occasional ; and, besides, 
they did not necessarily belong to distinct persons from the 
former. 

“Apostles.” This word is not to be limited to the Twelve, as 
Lightfoot has shown in detail in his excursus on Gal. i. 17. 
Besides St. Paul himself, Barnabas is certainly so called (Acts 
xiv. 4, 14); apparently also James the Lord’s brother (1 Cor. 
xv. 7; Gal. 1. 19), and Silvanus (1 Thess. ii. 6, ‘we might have been 
burdensome to you, being apostles of Christ”). In Irenaeus and 
Tertullian the Seventy are called apostles (Iren. ii. 21. 1; Tert. 
adv. Marc. iv. 24). According to the Greek Fathers, followed by 
Lightfoot, Andronicus and Junia are called apostles in Rom. xvi. 7. 
In 2 Cor. viii. 23 and Phil. ii. 25 the messengers of the Churches 
are called “apostles of the Churches.” But to be an apostle of 
Christ it seems to have been a condition that he should have seen 
Christ, 1 Cor. ix. 1, 2, and have, moreover, been a witness of 
the resurrection (Acts 1. ὃ, 21-23). Their office was not limited 
to any particular locality. Prophets are mentioned along with 
apostles in ii. 20, ΠῚ. 5. Chrysostom distinguishes them from 
“teachers” by this, that he who prophesies utters everything from 
the spirit, while he who teaches sometimes discourses from his 
own understanding. “ Foretelling” is not implied in the word 
either etymologically or in classical or N.T. usage. In classical 
writers it is used of interpreters of the gods. For N.T. usage, com- 
pare Matt. xxvi. 68, “Prophesy, who is it that smote thee”; 
Tit. 1. 12, “ἃ prophet of their own,” where it is used in the sense 
of the Latin “‘vates”; Matt. xv. 7, “well hath Isaiah prophesied 
of you”; and especially 1 Cor. xiv. 3, “He that prophesieth 
speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” 
Also Acts xv. 32, “Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, 
exhorted the brethren’. . . and confirmed them.” The function 
of the prophet has its modern parallel in that of the Christian 
preacher, who discourses “to edification, exhortation, and com- 
fort” to those who are already members of the Church. “ Preach- 


118 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 11 


ing,” in the English Version of the N.T., means proclaiming the 
gospel to those who have not yet known it (κηρύττειν, εὐαγγελί: 
ζεσθαι). 

By “evangelists” we are doubtless to understand those whose 
special function it was to preach the gospel to the heathen in sub- 
ordination to the apostles. They did not possess the qualifications 
or the authority of the latter (περιϊόντες ἐκήρυττον, says Theodoret). 
One of the deacons is specially called an evangelist (Acts xxi. 8). 
Timothy is told by St. Paul to do the work of an evangelist, but 
his office included other functions, 

τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους. ‘The first question is whether 
these words express distinct offices or two characters of the same 
office. Many commentators—both ancient and modern—adopt 
the former view, differing, however, greatly in their definitions. 
Theophylact understands by “pastors,” bishops and _ presbyters, 
and by “‘teachers,” deacons. But there is no ground for suppos- 
ing that deacons would be called διδάσκαλοι. On the other hand, 
the circumstance that τοὺς δέ is not repeated before διδασκάλους is in 
favour of the view that the words express two aspects of the same 
office. So Jerome: ‘Non enim ait: alios autem pastores et alios 
magistros, sed alios pastores et magistros, ut qui pastor est, esse 
debeat et magister.” ‘This, indeed, is not quite decisive, since it 
might only mark that the gifts of pastors and of teachers are not 
so sharply distinguished from one another as from those that 
precede ; and it must be admitted that in a concise enumeration 
such as the present, it is in some degree improbable that this 
particular class should have a double designation. ‘This much is 
clear, that “pastors and teachers” differ from the preceding classes 
in being attached to particular Churches. The name “pastors” 
implies this, and this term no doubt includes ἐπίσκοποι and 
πρεσβύτεροι. Compare 1 Pet. v. 2 (addressing the πρεσβύτεροι), 
ποιμάνατε TO ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐπισκοποῦντες (om. RV. 
mg.): τ Pet. il. 25, τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, 
where ἐπίσκοπον seems to explain ποιμήν: Acts xx. 28, τῷ ποιμνίῳ 
ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλ. 
ποιμήν was used in the earliest classical writers of rulers of the 
people. Even in Homer we have Agamemnon, for instance, 
called ποιμὴν λαῶν. The ποιμήν of a Christian Church would, of 
course, be a teacher as well as a governor; it was his business to 
guide the sheep of the flock; cf. τ Tim. lil. 2, δεῖ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον 
. . . διδακτικὸν (εἶναι) : also Tit. 1. 9. But there would naturally be 
other teachers not invested with the same authority and not form- 
ing a distinct class, much less co-ordinate with the ἐπίσκοποι. 
Had τοὺς δέ been repeated, it might have seemed to separate 
sharply the function of teaching from the office of ποιμήν. It is 
easy to see that ἐπίσκοπος would have been a much less suitable 


IV. 12] IDEAL PERFECTION OF THE SAINTS 110 


word here, since it does not suggest the idea of a moral and 
spiritual relation. 

12-16. The object of all ts the perfection of the saints, that they 
may be one in the faith, and mature in knowledge, so as not to be 
carried away by the winds of false doctrine ; but that the whole body, 
as one organism deriving tts nourishment from the Head, may be 
perfected in love. 

12. πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων, eis ἔργον διακονίας, εἰς 
οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ‘‘ With a view to the perfecting 
of the saints unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of 
the body of Christ.” The καταρτισμὸς τῶν ay. is the ultimate 
purpose, with a view to which the teachers, etc., have been given 
eis ἔργον δίακ. eis οἰκ. κιτιλ. The Authorised Version follows 
Chrysostom in treating the three clauses as co-ordinate, ἕκαστος 
οἰκοδομεῖ, ἕκαστος καταρτίζει, ἔκαστος διακονεῖ. The change in the 
prepositions is not decisive against this, for St. Paul is rather fond 
of such variety. But if the three members were parallel, ἔργον 
διακονίας should certainly come first as the more indefinite and the 
mediate object. In fact, Grotius and others suppose the thoughts 
transposed. A plausible view is that adopted by De Wette and 
many others, that the two latter members depend on the first. 
‘“‘ With a view to the perfecting of the saints, so that they may be 
able to work in every way to the building up,” etc. But in a 
connexion like this, where offices in the Church are in question, 
d.axovia can only mean official service; and this does not belong to 
the saints in general. 

Olshausen supposes the two latter members to be a subdivision 
of the first, thus: “for the perfecting of the saints, namely, on the 
one hand, of those who are endowed with gifts of teaching for the 
fulfilment of their office ; and, on the other hand, as regards the 
hearers, for the building up of the Church.” But it is impossible 
to read into the words this distinction, ‘on the one hand,” “ on 
the other hand”; and the οἰκοδομὴ τοῦ σώματος describes the 
function of teachers rather than of hearers. Besides, we cannot 
suppose the teachers themselves to be included among those who 
are the objects of the functions enumerated in ver. 11. 

The word καταρτισμός does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. Galen uses 
it of setting a dislocated joint. The verb καταρτίζω by its etymology means 
to restore or bring to the condition ἄρτιος, and is used Matt. v. 21 of 
““mending ” nets ; in Heb. xi. 3 of the ‘‘ framing” of the world. It occurs 
Gal. vi. 1 in the figurative sense, ‘‘ restore such one.” In Luke vi. 40 the 
sense is as here, ‘‘to perfect,” κατηρτισμένος πᾶς ἔσται ws ὁ διδάσκαλος 
αὐτοῦ. Also in 2 Cor. xiii. 11, καταρτίζεσθες. Comp. 2. 9, τὴν ὑμῶν 
κατάρτισιν. καταρτισμός is the completed result of κατάρτισις. 

οἰκοδομὴν Tod σώματος. The confusion of metaphors is excused 
by the fact that οἰκοδομή had for the apostle ceased to suggest its 
primary meaning; cf. 1 Cor. vill. 10; 1 Thess. v. 11, and below, 


[20 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 13 


ver. 16. The fact that both οἰκοδομή and σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ have a 
distinct metaphorical sense accounts for the confusion, but does 
not prove it non-existent. The ancients were less exacting in 
such matters than the moderns; even Cicero has some strange 
examples. See on iii. 18. 

It is useful to bear this in mind when attempts are made else- 
where to press too far the figure involved in some word. 

13. μέχρι καταντήσωμεν οἱ πάντες εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως καὶ 
τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας 
τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. “Till we all (we as a whole) attain 
to the oneness of the faith, and of the thorough knowledge of the 
Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature (or 
maturity) of the fulness of Christ.” μέχρι is without ἄν because 
the result is not uncertain. οἱ πάντες, “ we, the whole body of us,” 
namely, all believers, not all men (as Jerome), which is against the 
preceding context (τῶν ἁγίων). The oneness of the faith is opposed 
to the κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ περιφερόμενοι, κ-τ.λ., ver. 14. “ Contrarius 
unitati est omnis ventus,” Bengel. ἐπίγνωσις is not merely explana- 
tory of πίστις, which is indeed a condition of it, but a distinct 
notion. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ belongs to both substantives. The Son 
of God is the specific object of Christian faith as well as know- 
ledge. 

εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, a perfect, mature man, to which the following 
νήπιοι is opposed. Comp. Polyb. p. 523, ἐλπίσαντες ὡς παιδίῳ 
νηπίῳ χρήσασθαι τῷ Φιλίππῳ, διά τε τὴν ἡλικίαν Kal τὴν ἀπειρίαν 
τὸν μὲν ®, εὗρον τέλειον ἄνδρα. The singular is used because it 
refers to the Church as a whole; it corresponds to the εἷς καινὸς 
ἄνθρωπος. It is doubtful whether we are to take ἡλικία as “age” 
or “stature”; not only ἡλικία itself but μέτρον ἡλικίας occurs in 
both senses, the ripeness of full age, and the measure of stature. 
In the N.T. ἡλικία has the meaning “stature” in Luke xix. 3, 
ἡλικίᾳ μικρὸς nv, and “age” in John ix. 21, ἡλικίαν ἔχει. 
“Mature age” is the most common signification in Greek writers, 
whereas the adjective ἡλικός most frequently refers to magnitude. 
It. would appear, therefore, that to a Greek reader it is only the 
connexion in which it stands that would decide. ‘There is nothing 
here to decide for “stature” ; μέτρον, indeed, might at first sight 
seem to favour this, but we have in Philostratus, Vit. Soph. p. 543, 
τὸ μέτρον τῆς Brahe ταῖς μὲν ἄλλαις ἐ ἐπιστήμαις γήρως ἀρχή. 

On the other hand, what the context refers to is the idea of 
‘maturity; ; af “stature” were unambiguously expressed, it could 
only be understood as a mark of maturity ; any comparison with 
physical magnitude would be out of the question. See on Lk. il. 52. 

“Of the fulness of Christ,” ze. to which the fulness of Christ 
belongs. 

Some expositors take πλήρωμα here as if used by a Hebraism 


IV. 14] IDEAL PERFECTION OF THE SAINTS I2I 


for πεπληρωμένος = perfect, complete, either agreeing with Χριστοῦ 
(πεπληρωμένου) or with ἡλικίας (πεπληρωμένης), thus interpreting 
either ‘the measure of the perfect (mature) Christ,” or “of the 
perfect stature of Christ,” which again may be explained as that 
which Christ produces. But this supposition is inadmissible. We 
cannot separate τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Or, again, τὸ πλήρωμα 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ is understood to mean, “ what is filled by Christ,” 
z.e. the Church, which is so called in 1. 22. But apart from the 
wrong sense thus given to πλήρωμα, there is a wide difference 
between predicating τὸ πλ. of the Church, and using the term as 
synonymous with ἐκκλησία. We may ask, too, How can we all 
arrive at the maturity of the Church? A better interpretation 
is that which makes τὸ 7A. tod Xp.=the fulness of Christ, ze. 
the maturity is that to which belongs the full possession of the 
gifts of Christ. Oltramare objects that this interpretation rests on 
an erroneous view of the sense of πλήρωμα tod Xp., which does not 
mean the full possession of Christ, nor the full gracious presence 
of Christ. Moreover, it makes μέτρον superfluous, and makes the 
whole clause a mere repetition of εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον. With his view 
of zAjpwya= perfection (see i. 23), there is a distinct advance, 
“to the measure of the stature (1.4. to the height) of the perfection 
of Christ.” This is also Rtickert’s view. 

It is questioned whether St. Paul here conceives this ideal as one 
to be realised in the present life or only in the future. Amongst the 
ancients, Chrysostom, Theoph., Oecum., Jerome, took the former 
view, Theodoret the latter. It would probably be an error to 
suppose that the apostle meant definitely either one or the other. 
He speaks of an ideal which may be approximated to. But 
though it may not be perfectly attainable it must be aimed at, and 
this supposes that its attainment is not to be represented as 
impossible. See Dale, Lect. xv. p. 283. 

14, ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι, κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ περιφερόμενοι 
παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας. “That we may be ΠΟ longer 
children tossed and borne to and fro by every wind of teaching.” 
This does not depend on ver. 13, for one does not become a mature 
man in order to grow. Ver. 12 states the final goal of the work of 
the teachers ; ver. 13, that which must take place in the meantime 
in order to the attainment of that end. κλυδωνιζόμενοι from 
κλύδων, a billow or surge, may mean either tossed by the waves or 
tossed like waves, as in Josephus, “12. ix. 11. 3, ὃ δῆμος ταρασ- 
σόμενος καὶ κλυδωνιζόμενος. Here, as ἀνέμῳ is most naturally 
connected with it as well as with zepid., the latter seems best ; 
and this corresponds with Jas. 1. 8, διακρινόμενος ἔοικε κλύδωνι 
θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζομένῳ. A similar figure occurs in Jude 12, νεφέλαι 
ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμενοι : Cf. Heb. xiii. 9, διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις 
μὴ παραφέρεσθε. 


122 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 14 


ἀνέμῳ does not refer to “‘ emptiness ” nor to “impulsive power,” 
but rather is chosen as suitable to the idea of changeableness. So 
Theophylact : τῇ τροπῇ ἐμμένων καὶ ἀνέμους ἐκάλεσε τὰς διαφόρους 
διδασκαλίας. ‘The article before 66. does not “give definitive 
prominence to the teaching” (Eadie), but marks teaching in 
the abstract. 

ἐν TH κυβείᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. “Through the sleight of men.” 
κυβεία, from κύβος, is properly “ dice-playing,” and hence “trickery, 
deceit.” Soden prefers to take it as expressing conduct void of 
seriousness ; these persons play with the conscience and the 
soul’s health of the Christians. But this is not the ordinary sense 
of the word. ἐν is instrumental, the words expressing the means 
by which the zepid. x.t.A. is attained. ‘There is no objection to 
this on the ground that it would thus be pleonastic after ἐν ἀνέμῳ 
(Ell.), since ἐν τῇ «. is not connected with περιφερόμενοι, but 
with the whole clause. Ellicott himself says the preposition 
“appears rather to denote the e/ement, the evil atmosphere as it 
were, 27 which the varying currents of doctrine exert their force.” 
“Element” is itself figurative, and requires explanation ; and if 
‘evil atmosphere,” etc., is intended as an explanation, it is clear 
that no such idea is implied in the Greek, nor would it be at all 
in St. Paul’s way to carry out the figure in such detail, or to 
expect the reader to compare κυβεία to the atmosphere; see on ν. 5. 

ἐν πανουργίᾳ πρὸς τὴν μεθοδείαν τῆς πλάνης. “By craftiness, 
tending to the scheming of error.” πανοῦργος and πανουργία are 
used in the Sept. generally, if not invariably, in a good or an 
indifferent sense, “ prudent,” Prov. xiii. 1; ‘‘ prudence,” Prov. 1. 4, 
viii. 5; “shrewdness,” Ecclus. xxi. 12; Josh. ix. 4 (though this 
latter may be thought an instance of a bad sense). Polybius also 
uses πανοῦργος in the sense of δεινός, “clever, shrewd.” In classical 
writers the words have almost invariably a bad sense, the substan- 
tive meaning ‘“‘knavery, unscrupulous conduct.” 

In the N.T. the substantive occurs five times, always in a bad 
sense (Luke. xx..23; 1 Cor, i. 191; 2:\Cor-uiy. 2, xi 3, and dere); 
the adjective once, 2 Cor. xii. 16, in the sense “ crafty.” 

μεθοδεία is found only here and ch. vi. τι. The verb 
μεθοδεύω is used, however, by Polybius, Diodorus, and the Sept., 
and means to deal craftily (cf. 2 Sam. xix. 27, where Mephibosheth 
says of Ziba, μεθώδευσεν ἐν τῷ δούλῳ σου) ; the substantive μέθοδος, 
from which it is derived, being used by later authors in the mean- 
ing “cunning device.” πλάνη has its usual meaning “error,” not 
“seduction” (a meaning which it never has, not even in 2 Thess. 
ii. 11), and the genitive is subjective, thus personifying error. In 
the Revised Version πρός is taken as=according to, “after the 
wiles of error,” a comma being placed after πανουργίᾳ. This 
seems to leave the latter word too isolated. Moreover, this sense 


ἘΝ. 15] IDEAL PERFECTION OF THE SAINTS 123 


of πρός, though appropriate after verbs of action, being founded on 
the idea of “looking to,” or the like, does not agree with the 
participles kAvd. and zepip. Codex A adds after πλάνης, τοῦ 
διαβόλου, an addition suggested probably by vi. 11. 

15. ἀληθεύοντες δὲ ἐν ἀγάπῃ“ “ But cherishing truth in love.” 
RV. has “speaking truth in love,” only differing from AV. by 
the omission of the article before “truth,” but with “dealing 
truly” in the margin. Meyer insists that ἀληθεύειν always means 
‘“‘to speak the truth.” But the verb cannot be separated from 
ἀληθεία. Verbs in -evw express the doing of the action which is 
signified by the corresponding substantive in -eéa. Of this we 
have two examples in ver. 14, κυβεία, which is the action of 
κυβεύειν, μεθοδεία οἵ μεθοδεύειν. Comp. κολακεία, κολακεύω ; Bpa- 
Bevo, ἀριστεύω, ἀγγαρεύω with their substantives in -εία, and many 
others. Now ἀληθεία is not limited to spoken truth, least of all 
in the N.T. In this Epistle observe iv. 24, δικαιοσύνη καὶ ὁσιό- 
τητι τῆς ἀληθείας, also iv. 21 and y. 9; and compare the expres- 
sions “walking in truth,” “the way of truth,” “not obeying the 
truth, but obeying unrighteousness, ἀδικία. Here, where the 
warning is not to the false teachers, but to those who were in 
danger of being misled like children by them, “speaking truth” 
appears out of place. As to the connexion of ἐν ἀγάπῃ, it seems 
most natural to join it with ἀληθεύοντες, not only because other- 
wise the latter word would be harshly isolated, but because the 
“‘srowth” is so fully defined by the following words. If, indeed, 
love were not mentioned, as it is, at the end of ver. 16, there 
might be more reason to adopt the connexion with αὐξήσωμεν, on 
the ground that considering the frequent references to it, as in 
iv. 2, 11. 18, το, it was not likely to have been omitted in 
speaking of growth. Connected with ἀληθεύειν, ἐν ἀγάπῃ is not 
a limitation, but a general characteristic of the Christian walk ; 
“Not breaking up, but cementing brotherly love by walking in 
truth” (Alford). Probably, however, the apostle intended év 
ἀγάπῃ to be connected both with the preceding and the following ; 
his ideas progressing from ἀληθεία to ἀγάπη, and thence to 
αὔξησις. 

αὐξήσωμεν εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα ὅς ἐστιν ἣ κεφαλή, Χριστός. ““Μδγ 
grow up unto Him in all things, who is the Head, even Christ.” 

αὐξήσωμεν 15 not transitive as in 1 Cor. iii. 6 ; 2 Cor. ix. 10, 
etc., and in the older classical writers and the Septuagint, but in- 
transitive as in later Greek writers and Matt. vi. 28; Luke 
1. 80, ii. 40, and elsewhere ; cf. here also ii. 21. 

eis αὐτόν. Meyer understands this to mean “in relation to 
Him,” with the explanation that Christ is the head of the body, 
the growth of whose members is therefore in constant relation to 
Him as determining and regulating it. The commentary on εἰς 


124 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 15 


αὐτόν is, he says, given by ἐξ οὗ, «.7.A., the one expressing the 
ascending, the other the descendirtg direction of the relation of 
the growth to the head, He being thus the goal and the source 
of the development of the life of the Church. However correct 
this explanation may be in itself, it can hardly be extracted from 
the interpretation of eis as “in relation to,” which is vague and 
feeble. Nor does it even appear that εἰς αὐτόν admits of such a 
rendering at all. Such expressions as és 6= “in regard to which,” 
eis ταῦτα = “quod attinet ad . - .” etc., are not parallel. Inter- 
preted according to these analogies, the words would only mean 
“with respect to Him, that we should grow,” and the order would 
be εἰς αὐτὸν αὐξ. Meyer has adopted this view from his reluctance 
to admit any interpretation which does not agree with the figure 
of the head. But that figure is not suggested until after this. 
We have first the Church as itself becoming ἀνὴρ τέλειος, then 
this figure is departed from, and the readers individually are 
represented as possible νήπιοι. The subjects of αὐξήσωμεν, then, 
are not yet conceived as members of a body, but as separate 
persons. But as soon as the pronoun introduces Christ, the idea 
that He is the head suggests itself, and leads to the further 
development in ver. 16. 

We can hardly fail to see in αὐξ. εἰς αὐτόν a variation of 
καταντήσωμεν εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικιας τοῦ TA. τοῦ 
Xp. “Unto Him.” This would seem to mean at once “unto 
Him as a standard,” and ‘so as to become incorporated with 
Him”; not that εἰς αὐτόν by itself could combine both meanings, 
but that the thought of the apostle is passing on to the idea 
contained in the words that follow. He begins with the idea of 
children growing up to a certain standard of maturity, and with 
the word αὐτόν passes by a rapid transition to a deeper view of 
the relation of this growth to Christ the Head. 

Harless, to escape the difficulty of av& εἰς αὐτόν, connects the 
latter words with ἐν ἀγάπῃ, “in love to Him.” The order of the 
words is certainly not decisive against this view; instances of such 
a hyperbaton are sufficiently frequent, but there seems no reason 
for it here, and it would make the introduction of ‘Who is the 
Head” very abrupt. 

τὰ πάντα, the ordinary accusative of definition, “‘in all the parts 
of our growth.” 

Χριστός. This use of the nominative in apposition with the 
relative, where we might have expected the accusative Χριστόν, is a 
usual Greek construction. Compare Plato, Afo/. p. 41 A, εὑρήσει 
τοὺς ὡς ἀληθῶς δικαστάς, οἵπερ Kal λέγονται ἐκεῖ δικάζειν Μίνως τε 
καὶ Ῥαδάμανθος καὶ Αἴακος. The Received Text has ὁ Χριστός, with 
DGKL, Chrys. Theod. The article is wanting in δὲ A BC, Bas. 
Cyr. 


Vi. 16] DEPENDENCE ON THE HEAD 125 


16. ἐξ of πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συμβιβαΐόμενον. 
“From whom the whole body fitly framed and put together.” ἐξ 
ov goes with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται. ‘The present participles indicate 
that the process is still going on. On ovvapp. cf. 11. 21. The use 
of the word there forbids the supposition that the derivation from 
ἁρμός, a joint, was before the mind of the writer. συμβιβάζω 15 
used by classical writers in the sense of bringing together, either 
persons figuratively (especially by way of reconciliation) or things. 
Compare Col. ii. 2, συμβ. ἐν ἀγάπῃ. As to the difference between 
the two verbs here, Bengel says: “συναρμ. pertinet ad τὸ regulare, 
ut partes omnes in situ suo et relatione mutua recte aptentur, 
συμβ. notat simul firmitudinem et consolidationem.” So Alford 
and Eadie. Ellicott thinks the more exact view is that συμβ. 
refers to the aggregation, cvvapp. to the zxzteradaptation of the 
component parts. ‘This would seem to require that συμβ., as the 
condition of ovvapp., should precede. Perhaps it might be more 
correct to say that συναρμ. corresponds to the figure σῶμα, the 
apostle then, in the consciousness that he is speaking of persons, 
adding συμβιβ. (so Harless and, substantially, Meyer). In the 
parallel, Col. ti. 19, we have ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον. 
In that Epistle the main theme is “the vital connexion with the 
Head ; in the Ephesians, the unity in diversity among the mem- 
bers” (Lightfoot). Hence the substitution here of ovvapp. for 
ἐπιχορ. But the idea involved in the latter is here expressed in 
the corresponding substantive. 

διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας. “Through every contact with 
the supply.” The parallel in Col. 11. 19 seems to decide that these 
words are to be connected with the participles. 

ἁφή has some difficulty. It has been given the meaning 
“joint,” “sensation,” “contact.” If by “joint” is understood 
those parts of two connected limbs which are close to the touching 
surfaces (which is no doubt the common use of the word), then 
ἁφή cannot be so understood ; it means “touching” or “ contact,” 
and can no more mean “joint” in this sense than these English 
words can have that meaning. And what would be the meaning 
of “every joint of supply”? Eadie answers: “Every joint whose 
function it is to afford such aid.” But this is not the function of 
a joint, and this notion of the supply being through joints would 
be a very strange one and strangely expressed. Besides, it would not 
be consistent with the fact that it is from Christ that the ἐπιχορηγία 
proceeds. ‘Theodoret takes ἁφή to mean “sense” or “ sensation.” 
ἁφὴν τὴν αἴσθησιν προσηγόρευσεν, ἐπειδὴ Kab αὕτη pia τῶν πέντε 
αἰσθήσεων, that is, “the apostle calls sensation ‘touch,’ because 
this is one of the five senses, and he names the whole from the 
part.” Chrysostom is more obscure, and seems to make, not ἁφῆς 
alone, but ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχ.-- αἰσθήσεως ; for when he proceeds to 


126 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [IVv. 16 


expound, he says: τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκεῖνο TO ἐπιχορηγούμενον τοῖς μέλεσιν 
ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἑκάστου μέλους ἁπτόμενον οὕτως ἐνεργεῖ. Theo- 
doret’s interpretation is adopted by Meyer, “ every feeling in which 
the supply (namely, that which is given by Christ) is perceived.” 
But although the singular ἁφή, which sometimes means the sense 
of touch, might naturally be used to signify “feeling” in general ; 
yet we cannot separate this passage from that in Col. where we 
have the plural; and, as Lightfoot observes, until more cogent 
examples are forthcoming, “we are justified in saying that ai 
adat could no more be used for ai αἰσθήσεις, than in English ‘the 
touches’ could be taken as a synonym for ‘the senses.’” Meyer, 
indeed, takes the word there as “the feelings, sensations”; but 
there is no evidence that ddai could have this meaning either. 
Besides, “the conjunction of such incongruous things as τῶν ἁφῶν 
καὶ συνδέσμων, under the vinculum of the same article and preposi- 
tion, would be unnatural.” It remains that we take ἁφή in the 
sense of “contact,” which suits both this passage and that in Col. 
Lightfoot, on Col. ii. 19, gives several passages from Galen and 
Aristotle in illustration of this signification. Here we need only 
notice the distinction which Aristotle makes between σύμφυσις and 
ἁφή, the latter signifying only “contact,” the former “cohesion.” 
ἡ ἁφὴ τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας, then, is the touching of, z.e. contact with, the 
supply. ἅπτεσθαι τῆς ἐπιχ. would mean “to take hold of, or get 
in touch with,” the émy.; hence διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχ may 
well mean “through each part being in touch with the ministra- 
tion.” So Oecumenius: ἣ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κατιοῦσα πνευματικὴ 
δύναμις ἑνὸς ἑκάστου μέλους αὐτοῦ ἁπτομένη. Oltramare under- 
stands the gen. as gen. auctoris=éx τῆς ἐπιχορ. --τῆς ἀφῆς ἧς 
ἐπεχορήγησε, “par toute sorte de jointures provenant de sa 
largesse.” ἐπιχορηγία occurs again Phil. i. 19 ; it is found nowhere 
else except in ecclesiastical writers. But the verb ἐπιχορηγέω 
(which occurs five times in the N.T.) is also found, though rarely, 
in later Greek writers. 
κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου μέρους. 
μέρους is the reading of § BD GK LP, Arm., Theodoret, etc. ; but A C, 
Vulg. Syr. Boh., Chrys. have μέλους. This is so naturally suggested by the 
figure of σῶμα that we can hardly doubt that it came in either by a natural 


mistake or as an intentional emendation. But μέρους is really much more 
suitable, as more general. 


“ According to the proportionate working of each several part.” 
ἐνέργεια does not mean “ power,” but ‘acting power,” “activity,” 
“working,” so that the interpretation of κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν as adverbial = 
“ powerfully,” is excluded. As to the connexion of the following 
words, ἐν μέτρῳ may be taken either with κατ᾽ évepy. or as govern- 
ing ἑνὸς ἑκ. μέρ. The latter is the view adopted by many com- 
mentators, with so little hesitation that they do not mention the 


Ἐν: 17] DEPENDENCE ON THE HEAD 127 


other. Thus Eadie and Ellicott render “according to energy in 
the measure of each individual part.” ‘This is not very lucid, and 
Ellicott therefore explains ‘‘in the measure of (sc. commensurate 
with).” Alford’s rendering is similar. If this is understood to 
mean “the energy which is distributed to every part,” etc., as it 
apparently must be, we miss some word which should suggest the 
idea of distribution, which ἐν certainly does not. Moreover, 
ἐνέργεια, from its signification, requires to be followed by some 
defining word, and elsewhere in the N.T. always is so. 

It is preferable, therefore, to join ἐν μέτρῳ closely with ἐνέργεια, 
which it qualifies, and which is then defined by the genitive 
following. It is as if the writer had been about to say κατ᾽ évepy. 
ἑνὸς éx., and then recalling the thought of ver. 7 inserted ἐν μέτρῳ. 
If this view (which is Bengel’s) is correct, the reason assigned by 
Meyer for connecting these words with αὔξ. ποιεῖται instead of with 
the participles falls to the ground, viz. that μέτρῳ suits the idea of 
growth better than that of joining together. The RV. appears to 
agree with the view here taken. 

τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται. “Carries on the growth of 
the body.” In Col. 11. 19 we have αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν ; here the 
active participation of the body as a living organism in promoting 
its own growth is brought out, and this especially in order to 
introduce ἐν ἀγάπῃ. The middle ποιεῖται is not “intensive,” but 
is appropriately used of the body promoting its own growth ; ποιεῖ 
would imply that σῶμα and σώματος had a different reference. 
σώματος is used instead of ἑαυτοῦ, no doubt because of the remote- 
ness Of σῶμα, as well as because ἑαυτοῦ was required presently. 
Compare Luke iii. 19. 

εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπη. On the mixture of metaphors 
cf. ver. 12. οἰκοδομή is not suitable to the figure of a body, but is 
suggested by the idea of the thing signified to which the figure in 
oix. is so familiarly applied. It would be awkward to separate ἐν 
ἀγάπῃ from oix. and join it with αὔξησιν ποιεῖται, as Meyer does on 
account of the correspondence with ver. 15. Through the work 
of the several parts the building up of the whole is accomplished 
by means of love. Observe that it is the growth of the whole that 
is dwelt on, not that of the individual parts. 

17-24. Admonition, that knowing how great the blessings of 
which they have been made partakers, they should fashion their lives 
accordingly, putting off all that belongs to their old life, and putting 
on the new man, 

17. τοῦτο οὖν λέγω καὶ μαρτύρομαι ἐν Κυρίῳ. Resumes from vv. 
1-3. As Theodoret observes: πάλιν ἀνέλαβε τῆς παραινέσεως τὸ 
προοίμιον. οὖν, as Often, has simply this resumptive force, and does 
not indicate any inference from what precedes ; for the exhorta- 
tion begun vv. 1-3 was interrupted, and the ἀξίως περιπατεῖν of 


128 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 17 


ver. I is repeated in the negative form in ver. 17. The τοῦτο looks 
forward. 

μαρτύρομαι,“1 protest, conjure” = διαμαρτύρομαι. Polyb. p. 1403, 
συνδραμόντων τῶν ἐγχωρίων καὶ μαρτυρομένων τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐπανάγειν 
ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν. Thucydides, vill. 53, μαρτυρομένων καὶ ἐπιθειαζόντων 
μὴ κατάγειν. The notion of exhortation and precept is involved 
in this and λέγω by the nature of the following context, μηκέτι 
περιπ., as in the passage of Thucydides, so that there is no ellipsis 
of δεῖν. 

ἐν Κυρίῳ. Not either “per Dominum” or “calling the Lord 
to witness.” μάρτυρα tov Κύριον καλῶ, Chrys. Theodoret, etc. 
Some expositors have defended this on the ground that N.T. 
writers, following the Hebrew idiom, wrote ὀμόσαι ἔν τινι ; but it by 
no means follows that ἔν τινε without ὀμόσαι could be used in this 
sense any more than κατὰ Διός could be used without ὀμόσαι 
instead of πρὸς Διός. 

Ellicott says: “ As usual, defining the element or sphere in 
which the declaration is made”; and so Eadie and Alford. This 
is not explanation. Meyer is a little clearer: ‘‘ Paul does not 
speak in his own individuality, but Christ is the element in which 
his thought and will move.” εἶναι ἔν τινι is a classical phrase 
expressing complete dependence on a person. Soph. Oed. Col. 
247, ἐν ὑμῖν ὡς Θεῷ κείμεθα: Ocd. Tyr. 314, ἐν σοὶ γάρ ἐσμεν: 
Eurip. “4. 277, ἐν σοι δ᾽ ἐσμὲν καὶ ζῆν καί μή. Compare Acts 
xvil. 28, ἐν αὐτῷ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμεν. In the N.T,, 
indeed, the expression acquires a new significance from the idea 
of fellowship and union with Christ and with God. Whatever the 
believer does, is done with a sense of dependence on Him and 
union with Him. For example, “ speaking the truth” “ marrying” 
(1 Cor. vii. 39). 

Here, where an apostolic precept is concerned, it is implied 
that the apostle speaks with authority. But the expression would 
hardly have been suitable had he not been addressing those who, 
like himself, had fellowship with the Lord. ‘This interpretation is 
so far from being “ jejune,” that it implies a personal and spiritual 
relation which is put out of sight by the impersonal figure of an 
ve lement.w 

μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καθὼς καὶ τὰ ἔθνη περιπατεῖ. For the 
infinitive present compare the passages above cited from Thucyd. 
and Polyb. Also Acts xxi. 2, λέγων μὴ περιτέμνειν : xxi. 4, ἔλεγον 
μὴ ἀναβαίνειν, where the imperative would be used in oratio directa. 
Demosth. xxvil. 7, λέγω πάντας ἐξιέναι. Aesch. Agam. 898, λέγω 
kat ἄνδρα, μὴ Θεόν, σέβειν ἐμέ. ᾿ 


Text. Rec. adds λοιπά before ἔθνη, with N* D’°K L, Syr., Chrys. ete. 
The word is wanting in § AB D*G, Vulg. Boh. 


IV. 18] FORMER STATE OF THE GENTILES 129 


The λοιπά is more likely to have been added in error than 
omitted. Assuming that it is not genuine, this is an instance of St. 
Paul’s habitual regard for the feelings of his readers. It suggests 
that they are no longer to be classed with the ἔθνη. They were 
ἔθνη only ἐν σαρκί, but were members of the true commonwealth 
of Israel. 

ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν. Although in the O.T. idols are 
frequently called μάταια (compare Acts xiv. 15), the substantive is 
not to be limited to idolatry, to which there is no special reference 
here. It is the falseness and emptiness of their thoughts that are 
in question (cf. Rom. i. 21, ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν). 
Nor, again, are we, with Grotius, to suppose any special reference to 
the philosophers, merely because in 1 Cor. iii. 20 it is said of the 
διαλογισμοὶ τῶν σοφῶν that they are μάταιοι. Rather, it refers to 
the whole moral and intellectual character of heathenism ; their 
powers were wasted without fruit. As Photius (quoted by Harless) 
remarks: ov τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας φρονοῦντες καὶ πιστεύοντες Kal ἀπο- 
δεχόμενοι ἀλλ᾽ ἅπερ ἂν ὃ νοῦς αὐτῶν μάτην ἀναπλάσῃ καὶ λογίσηται. 
νοῦς includes both the intellectual and the practical side of reason, 
except where there is some ground for giving prominence to one 
or the other in particular. Here we have both sides, ἐσκοτωμένοι 
referring to the intellectual, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι to the practical. 

18. ἐσκοτωμένοι TH διανοίᾳ ὄντες, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ 
Θεοῦ. 


ἐσκοτωμένοι is the form in NAB, while DGKLP have ἐσκοτισμένοι. 
The former appears to be the more classical. 


ὄντες 1S better joined with the preceding than with the 
following. If ὄντες ἀπηλλ. be taken together, this would have to 
be regarded as assigning the ground of ésxor. But the darkness 
was not the effect of the alienation, which, on the contrary, was 
the result of the ἄγνοια. The position of ὄντες is not against this, 
since ἐσκοτ. τῇ ὃ. express a single notion. Meyer illustrates from 
Herod. 1. 355 ov καθαρὸς χεῖρας ἐών, and Xen. Ages. ΧΙ IO, πραότατος 
φίλοις ὦν. ‘The two participles thus stand in an emphatic position 
at the beginning, and this emphasis is lost by joining ὄντες with 
the following. The change of gender from ἔθνη to ἐσκοτωμένοι 
ὄντες Corresponds to a change from the class to the person. 
ἐσκοτωμένοι 1s Opposed to πεφωτισμένοι (i. 18). We have the 
same expression Rom. i. 21, ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία, 
and a remarkable parallel in Josephus, τὴν διάνοιαν ἐπεσκοτισμένους, 
Ant. ix. 4. 3. Διάνοια strictly means the understanding, but is not 
so limited in the N.T. Compare Col. 1. 21, ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ : 
2 Pet. ili. 1, dueyeipw . . . τὴν εἰλικρινῆ διάνοιαν. Here, however, 
the connexion decides for the meaning “understanding.” On 
ἀπηλλ. cf. 1. 12, 
9 


130 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [τῶ 18 


τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ. Explained by Theodoret as=rijs ἐν ἀρετῇ 
ζωῆς, 7.6. as=the life approved by God, or “godly life.” But ζωή 
in N.T. does not mean “course of life,” βίος, but true life as 
opposed to θάνατος. In Gal. v. 25 we have it expressly | dis- 
tinguished from “course of conduct” ; εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι 
καὶ στοιχῶμεν. Moreover, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι implies separation from 
something real. Erasmus’ explanation of the genitive as one of 
apposition, ‘‘vera vita qui est Deus,” is untenable. The analogy 
of ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ, Phil. iv. 7; αὔξησις τοῦ Θεοῦ, Col. 11. 19, . 
suggests that the words mean “the life which proceeds from God” ; 
“tota vita spiritualis quae in hoc seculo per fidem et justitiam 
inchoatur et in futura beatitudine perficitur, quae tota peculiariter 
vita Dei est, quatenus a Deo per gratiam datur,” Estius. But 
something deeper than this is surely intended by the genitive, 
which naturally conveys the idea of a character or quality. It is 
the life “qua Deus vivit in suis,” Beza (who, however, wrongly 
adds to this “quamque praecipit et approbat ”). Somewhat 
similarly Bengel: ‘‘ Vita spiritualis accenditur in credentibus ex 
ipsa Dei vita.” Hfarless, indeed, argues that the life of regenera- 
tion is not here referred to, since what is in question is not the 
opposition of the heathen to Christianity, but to God; so that ζωὴ 
τ. Θεοῦ is to be compared to John i. 3, where the λόγος is said to be 
(from the beginning) the ζωή and φῶς of the world, and thus there 
was an original fellowship of man with God. So in part many 
expositors, regarding the perfect participles as indicating ‘‘ gentes 
ante defectionem suam a fide patrum, imo potius ante lapsum 
Adami, fuisse participes lucis et afae,” Bengel. But St. Paul is 
here speaking of the contemporary heathen in contrast to those 
who had become Christians (ver. 17) ; and it is hard to think that if 
he meant to refer to this original divine life in man, he would not 
have expressed himself more fully and precisely. ‘The idea is one 
which he nowhere states explicitly, and it is by no means involved 
of necessity in the tense of the participles, which is sufficiently 
explained as expressing a state. Indeed, the aorist ἀπηλλοτριωθέντες 
would more suitably suggest the idea of a time when they were not 
so; cf. τ Pet. il. το, οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι viv δὲ ἐλεηθέντες. And how 
can we think the Gentiles as at a prehistoric time τῇ διανοίᾳ not 
ἐσκοτωμένοι ἢ 

διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας 
αὐτῶν. The cause of their alienation from the Divine life is their 
ignorance, and this again results from their hardness of heart. 
Most expositors regard dua... διά as co-ordinate, some con- 
necting both clauses with ἀπηλλ. only (Origen, Alford, Eadie, 
Ellicott), others with both participles (Bengel, Harless, Olsh. De 
Wette). Bengel, followed by Olsh. and De Wette, refers διὰ τὴν 
ἄγν. to ἐσκ. and διὰ τὴν π. to ἀπηλλ. But this is rather too artificial 


IV. 19] FORMER STATE OF THE GENTILES 131 


ἴοι ἃ letter. Nor does it yield a satisfactory sense ; for ἄγνοια is not 
the cause of the darkness, but its effect. De Wette evades this by 
saying that ἄγνοια refers to speculative knowledge, éoxor. to practi- 
cal. But there is no sufficient ground for this. The substantive 
ἄγνοια does not elsewhere occur in St. Paul’s Epistles (it is in his 
speech, Acts xvii. 30, “the times of this ignorance”; and in 
1 Pet. i. 14, besides Acts ili. 17); but the verb is of frequent 
occurrence, and always of ignorance only, not of the absence of a 
higher faculty of knowledge. Such ignorance was not inaccessible 
to light, as is shown by the instances of the converted Gentiles ; but 
so far as it was due to the hardness of their hearts, it was culp- 
able. It is only by the subordination of the latter clause to the 
former that the use of τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς instead of the simpie 
αὐτῶν finds a satisfactory explanation. - Compare Rom. i. 18-33. 
Ellicott, following Harless, explains these words as pointing out 
the zzdwelling deep-seated nature of the ἄγνοια, and forming a 
sort of parallelism to τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, and so, as Harless adds, 
opposed to mere external occasions. But there is nothing of this 
in the context, nor in the words οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς. The ignorance 
must be in them; and, unless we take the connexion as above 
(with Meyer), the words express nothing more than αὐτῶν. 

πώρωσις is “hardness,” not “blindness,” as most of the ancient 
versions interpret. Indeed, it is so explained also by Suidas and 
Hesychius, as if derived from an adjective πωρός, “blind” ; which 
seems, however, to be only an invention of the grammarians 
(perhaps from confusion with πηρός, with which it is often 
confounded by copyists). It is really derived (through zwpdw) 
from πῶρος, which originally meant “‘tufa,” and then “callus,” a 
callosity or hardening of the skin. (It is also used by medical 
writers of the “callus” formed at the end of fractured bones, and 
of “chalkstones” in the joints.) Hence, from the insensibility of 
the parts covered with hard skin, the verb means to make dull or 
insensible. It is thus correctly explained by Theodoret, πώρωσιν 
τὴν ἐσχάτην ἀναλγησίαν λέγει" καὶ yap αἱ τῷ σώματι ἐγγινόμεναι 
πωρώσεις οὐδεμίαν αἴσθησιν ἔχουσι. Cicero frequently uses ‘“cal- 
lum” in a similar figurative sense, e.g. “ipse labor quasi callum 
quoddam obducit dolori,” Zusc. Disp. 1. 15. 

19. οἵτινες, “ quippe qui,” “being persons who.” ἀπηλγηκότες, 
“being past feeling,” a word appropriate to the figure in πώρωσις ; 
it properly means to give over feeling pain, and is used by 
Thucydides with an accusative of the thing, ἀπαλγοῦντες τὰ ἴδια, 
11. 61 ; hence it comes to mean “to be without feeling.” The AV. 
“past feeling” expresses the sense very accurately. Polybius, 
however, has the expression ἀπαλγοῦντες ταῖς ἐλπίσι, and, indeed, 
elsewhere uses the verb in the sense “giving up,” as Hesychius 
interprets, μηκέτι θέλοντες πονεῖν. This may be “giving up in 


132 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 19 


despair,” as in i. 58 of the Romans and Carthaginians, κάμνοντες 
ἤδη τοῖς πόνοις διὰ τὴν συνέχειαν τῶν κινδύνων, εἰς τέλος ἀπήλγουν. 
Hence some commentators have adopted “ desperantes” here, 
which is the rendering of the Vulgate. Bengel cites from Cicero 
(422. ad famil. ii. 16) what looks like a paraphrase of the word: 
“‘diuturna desperatione serum obduruisse animum ad dolorem 
novum.” “ Dolor, says Bengel, “urget ad medicinam: dolore autem 
amisso, non modo spes sed etiam studium et cogitatio rerum 
bonarum amittitur, ut homo sit excors, effrons, exspes.” Theophy- 
lact gives a similar interpretation : κατεῤῥᾳθυμηκότες, καὶ μὴ θέλοντες 
καμεῖν πρὸς τὴν εὕρεσιν τοῦ καλοῦ, καὶ ἀναλγήτως διατεθέντες. The 
reading of D G is ἀπηλπικότες (ἀφ- G); but evidence for the 
textual reading is predominant, and, moreover, ἀπηλπικότες would 
give a very poor sense. Jerome appears to regard “ desperantes ” 
of the old Latin as an incorrect rendering of ἀπηλπικότες, for 
which he suggests “indolentes sive indolorios.” But he did not 
alter the text of the translation. Probably the other versions 
which express the same meaning had not a different reading ; and, 
on the other hand, the reading of D G may have arisen either from 
the influence of: the versions or as a gloss. 

ἑαυτούς. What is ascribed in Rom. i. 24 to God is ascribed 
here to themselves, in accordance with the hortatory purpose of 
the present passage, so as to fix attention on the part which they 
themselves had in the result. 

ἀσελγής and ἀσέλγεια were used by earlier writers (Plato, 
Isaeus, Dem.) in the sense of “insolent, insolence, outrageous ” ; 
Later writers apply them in the sense “lasciviousness.” The 
substantive has that meaning in 2 Cor. xii. 21; Gal. v. 19; 
2 Pet. i. 7, τὸ; Rom: xmj13. Im Mark vil.'225 jude aera 
iv. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 2, the meaning is less clearly defined. In the 
LXX it occurs only Wisd. xiv. 22 and 2 Macc. ii. 26. The 
derivation is probably from σέλγω, a form of θέλγω. 

εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης. ἐργασία suggests the idea that 
they made a business οἵ ἀκαθαρσία. So Chrysostom: οὐ παραπε- 
σόντες, φησίν, ἥμαρτον, ἀλλ᾽ εἰργάζοντο αὐτὰ τὰ δεινά, καὶ μελέτῃ TO 
πράγματι ἐκέχρηντο. It is not, however, to be understood of literal 
trading in impurity, which could not be asserted with such 
generality of the Gentiles. Compare Luke xil. 58, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ δὸς 
ἐργασίαν, “give diligence”: see note ad Joc. 

ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ. πλεονεξία originally meant (like πλεονέκτης, 
πλεονεκτεῖν) Only advantage over another, for example, superiority 
in battle, hence it passed to the idea of unfair advantage, and then 
to that of the desire to take unfair advantage, “‘ covetousness.” 
The verb occurs five times in 2 Cor. in the sense “ take advantage 
of.” The substantive πλεονέκτης is found (besides Eph. v. 5) in 
1 Cor. v. 10, 11, Vi. 16. πλεονεξία occurs in all ten times in N.T. 


Iv. 19] FORMER STATE OF THE GENTILES 133 


In Luke xii. 15 it is clearly “ covetousness,” and so in 2 Cor. 1x. 5 ; 
1 Thess. ii. 5. But all three words are so frequently associated 
with words relating to sins of the flesh, that many expositors, 
ancient and modern, have assigned to them some such special 
signification. Thus πλεονέκτης, 1 Cor. v. 10, 11; πλεονεξία, Col. 
ii. ἐς πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν, πάθος, ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν, καὶ τὴν 
πλεονεξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία : besides the present passage 
and Eph. v. 3, πᾶσα ἀκαθαρσία ἢ πλεονεξία, cf. also v. 5. In 
2 Pet. ii. 14, καρδίαν γεγυμνασμένην πλεονεξίας ἔχοντες, “ Covetous- 
ness” does not suit the connexion as well as some more general 
term. But the most striking passage is 1 Thess. iv. 6, τὸ μὴ 
ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν TO πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, where 
the verb is undoubtedly applied to adultery, viewed as an injustice 
to one’s neighbour. And this suggests that possibly in Mark vii. 
21, where the right order is κλοπαί, φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι, there 
is a similiar idea. In Rom. 1. 29 also, something grosser than covet- 
ousness seems to be intended. In Polycarp, Ζ 414. vi., which exists 
only in the Latin, “‘avaritia” undoubtedly represents the original 
πλεονεξία. Polycarp is lamenting the sin of Valens, and says: 
““moneo itaque vos ut abstineatis ab avaritia, et sitis casti et 
veraces,” and a little after: “si quis non abstinuerit se ab avaritia, 
ab idololatria coinquinabitur ; et tanquam inter gentes judicabitur.” 
In the present passage Theodoret says the word is used for 
ἀμετρία: “Πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν τολμῶσι, ὑπὲρ κόρον τῷ διεφθαρμένῳ 
καταχρώμενοι βίῳ πλεονεξίαν γὰρ τὴν ἀμετρίαν ἐκάλεσε." ‘The asso- 
ciation with idolatry in Eph. v. 5 and Col. ii. 5 favours the same 
view. Hammond on Rom. 1. 29 has a learned note in support of 
this signification of πλεονεξία, which, however, he pushes too far. 
Of course it is not alleged that the word of itself had this special 
sense, but that it was with some degree of euphemism so applied, 
and in sucha connexion as the present would be so understood. 

It is alleged, on the other side, that covetousness and impurity 
are named together as the two leading sins of the Gentile world ; 
that they even proceed from the same source ; that covetousness 
especially is idolatry, as being the worship of Mammon. 

Covetousness was not a peculiarly Gentile sin. The Pharisees 
were covetous (fiAdpyvpor). Our Lord warns His own disciples 
against πλεονεξία, in the sense of covetousness, in Luke xii. 15 
above referred to. And the form of the warning there shows that 
covetousness and impurity were not on the same level in respect of 
grossness. This may also be inferred from St. Paul’s 6 κλέπτων 
μηκέτι κλεπτέτω. Can we conceive him saying ὁ μοιχεύων μηκέτι 
μοιχευέτωῦ 

That covetousness and impurity proceed from the same source, 
and that “the fierce longing of the creature which has turned from 
God to fill itself with the lower things of sense” (Trench, Syz., after 


134 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 20 


Bengel), is psychologically false. Lust and impurity are excesses 
of a purely animal and bodily passion ; covetousness is a secondary 
desire, seeking as an end in itself that which was originally desired 
only as a means. 

The explanation of ver. 5 by the observation that the covetous 
serve Mammon, not God, is due to Theodoret, who derives it from 
Matt. vi. 24. But that passage does not make it probable that the 
covetous man would be called an idolator without some explanation 
added. St. Paul himself speaks of persons who serve, not the Lord 
Christ, but their own belly (Rom. xvi. 18), and of others ‘“ whose 
god is their belly” ; yet he probably would not call them, without 
qualification, “idolators.” Indeed, other Greek commentators 
devised various explanations. Chrysostom, for instance, as one 
explanation, suggests that the covetous man treats his gold as 
sacred, because he does not touch it. 

We may ask, further, why should covetousness be specified with 
impurity and filthy speaking as not to be even named? (Eph. v. 3). 
Impure words suggest impure thoughts, words about covetousness 
have no tendency to suggest covetous thoughts. It is said, indeed, 
that the 7 there between ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα and πλεονεξία implies 
that the two words cannot refer to sins of the same kind ; but this 
argument seems to be answered by the immediately following μωρο- 
λογία ἢ εὐτραπελία. In ver. 5, also, we have πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος 
ἢ πλεονέκτης. In the present passage we have, not καὶ 7X., but 
ἐν πλ. To take this as ev “covetousness,” or the like, after the 
strong words that have preceded, would be an incredible weakening 
of the charge. 

20. ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν. ‘ But ye, not so 
did ye learn Christ.” Beza, followed by Braune, places a stop 
after οὕτως, “But not so ye. Ye have learned Christ.” This, how- 
ever, makes the second clause too abrupt. We should expect ὑμεῖς 
to be repeated, or ἀλλά inserted, as in Luke xxii, 26, ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ 
οὕτως" ἀλλ᾽ ὃ μείζων ἐν ὑμῖν, κιτιλ. Besides, the connexion with ver. 21 
is impaired, ‘‘ ye learned Christ ” is first stated absolutely, and then 
with a qualification. 

οὐχ οὕτως, a litotes; cf. Deut. xvili. 14. ἐμάθετε, “ did learn,” 
viz. when they became Christians. This use of μανθάνω with an 
accus. of a person seems to be without parallel. The instance 
cited by Raphelius from Xenophon, ἵνα ἀλλήλους μάθοιεν ὅπόσοι 
εἴησαν, is clearly not parallel, the object of the verb there being 
ὁπόσοι, k.T.A. Hence the ancients and many moderns have taken 
Χριστόν as = “ doctrinam Christi,” which is feeble and unsupported. 
Others, as Rtickert and Harless, understand ἐμάθετε as “ learned 
to know,” viz. “ what He is and what He desires.” But the key 
to the expression is supplied by the passages which speak of 
“preaching \Christ,” Gal. 1. 16; ἃ Corn 1:23); ΣΦ τ ἢ ΤΟΝ 


IV. 21] THE NEW MAN 135 


Phil. i. 15 ; indeed the following verse (21) speaks of “ hearing 
Him.” As Christ was the content of the preaching, He might 
properly be said to be learned. So Phil. ili. 10, rod γνῶναι αὐτόν. 
Col. ii. 6, παρελάβετε τὸν Xp., is similar. 

ΟἿΣ eye, “tum eerie; si; (see oni 1: 2°) Here, also) the 
conjunction is unfavourable to the view that St. Paul is addressing 
those whom he had himself instructed. αὐτόν with emphasis 
placed first, “if Him, indeed, ye heard.” ἐν αὐτῷ, not “ by Him,” 
as AV., a construction not admissible with a personal author, 
nor “illius nomine, quod ad illum attinet” (Bengel). But as those 
who believe are said to be ἐν Χριστῷ, so here they are said to have 
been taught in Him, ze. as in fellowship with Him. There is a 
progress, as Meyer observes, from the first announcement of the 
gospel (ἠκούσατε) to the further instruction which then as converts 
they would have received (ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδ.), both being included 
in ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν. John x. 27 is not parallel, since ἀκούειν in 
the sense ‘“‘ hearken to” would take the genitive. 

Καθώς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ. The AV. “as the truth is in 
Jesus” is incompatible with the absence of the article, but admits 
of being understood in the true sense of the Greek, which is not 
the case with the form in which the words are so often quoted, 
“the truth as it is in Jesus,” which would be τὴν ἀλήθειαν καθώς 
ἐστιν, «.t.4. Nor do the words mean, as Jerome interprets: 
“‘quomodo est veritas in Jesu, sic erit in vobis qui didicistis 
Christum,”—an interpretation which is followed by Estius and 
many others, and which makes Jesus be set forth as the pattern 
of truth, 2.6. holiness. In addition to the difficulty of so under- 
standing ἀλήθεια, this supposes ὑμᾶς to be emphatic, which its 
position forbids; the antithesis would also require that ἐν τῷ 
Ἰησοῦ should come after καθώς. Moreover, any interpretation 
which makes ἀποθέσθαι depend on ἐδιδάχθητε is open to the 
objection that in that case ὑμᾶς is superfluous. Ellicott, who adopts 
this construction, suggests that ὑμᾶς is introduced to mark their 
contrast, not only with other Gentiles, but with their own former 
state as implied in τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφήν. But it is not clear 
how ὑμᾶς can mark such a contrast. Nor is ἐδιδ, suitable to 
ἀνανεοῦσθαι. It seems better to take ἀποθέσθαι ὑμᾶς as the subject 
of the clause, ἀλήθεια being understood in the sense “true 
teaching,” opposed to ἀπάτη. Compare the use of ἀλήθεια in 
John i. 21, “he that doeth the truth,” and here, ver. 24. The 
sense will then be, ‘‘as is right teaching in Jesus: that ye put off.” 
The change from Χριστόν to ᾿Ιησοῦ is appropriate. Their introduc- 
tion to Christianity or to the πολίτεια of Israel instructed them in 
the hope centred in the Messiah as a Redeemer. But when 
obedience to the practical teaching of a historical person is referred 
to, the historical name is used. 


136 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [Iv. 22 


A very different view of the construction is taken by Credner, 
v. Soden, and Westcott and Hort mg., viz. that Χριστός is the 
subject of ἐστιν, in which case ἀλήθεια may be either nom. 
(Credner, Soden) or dative (WH. mg.). Soden remarks that 
considering the emphatic repetition of αὐτόν, ἐν αὐτῷ, which takes 
up τὸν Xp. from the clause with οὕτως, the subject of this clause 
can only be Christ, viz. ‘‘as He is truth in Jesus,” so that the 
thought is that they must not only believe in a Christ, but 
recognise Him in Jesus; and if they are to live in truth in Christ, 
they must live in Jesus. The thought is parallel to Heb. xiii. 18. 
The dative ἀληθείᾳ, as in WH. mg., seems preferable, “‘ have been 
taught in Him, as He is in truth, in Jesus.” On ἀληθείᾳ in this 
sense, comp. Phil. i. 18, εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε ἀληθείᾳ. 

22. ἀποθέσθαι, a figure from putting off clothes = ἀπεκδυσάμενοι, 
Col. 11. 9, as ἐνδύσασθαι from putting them on. The frequency of 
the figure in Greek writers puts out of the question any reference 
to change of dress in baptism (Grotius). 

It is rightly rendered in the Vulg. ‘deponere,” not ‘ deposu- 
isse,” which would require the perfect inf. The aorist expresses 
the singleness of the act, whereas ἀνανεοῦσθαι expresses a continu- 
ing process.! The infin. is not for the imperative (as in Phil. 
ili. 16), which is inconsistent with ὑμᾶς. 

κατὰ τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφήν. ‘‘As concerns your former 
manner of life,” defining the particular respect in which the old 
man was to be put off. ἀναστροφή in this sense belongs to later 
Greek. The word originally meant a turning back, thence dwell- 
ing in a place; hence Aeschylus uses it of a “haunt.” We find it 
in Polybius in the sense of “behaviour.” κατά te τὴν λοιπὴν 
ἀναστροφὴν καὶ Tas πράξεις τεθαυμασμένος ὑπὲρ τὴν ἡλικίαν (iv. 82. 
1); so also Epict. i. 9. 5. In the Sept. it occurs only in the 
Apocrypha, Tobit iv. 19; 2 Macc. v. 8; both times in this sense. 

τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον. The ἐγὼ σαρκικός of Rom. vil. 143 ἐγὼ 
σάρξ, 7b. 18, opposed to ἄνθρωπος ὃ κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθείς. The 
adoption of the expression the old and the new ἄνθρωπος, indicates 
that the change affects, not some particulars only, but the whole 
personality or ἐγώ. 

τὸν φθειρόμενον. “ Which waxeth corrupt.” This supplies a 
motive for the putting off. ‘The present tense indicates a process 
that is going on. Compare Rom. viil. 21, “bondage of φθορά.; 
Meyer thinks the reference is to eternal destruction, the present 
expressing either the future vividly conceived as perfect, or rather 
what already exists in tendency, “qui tendit ad exitium,” Grot. 


1 ἐς Except after verbs of saying, thinking, etc., the aorist in the infinitive has 
no preterite signification, and differs from the present only in this, that it 
expresses a single transient action ; and even this bye-signification often falls 
away.” —Madvig. 


IV. 28] THE NEW MAN 1,37 


His reason is that the moral corruption of the old man is already 
existing, not “becoming.” But though the corruption exists it 15 
progressive. ‘The tendency to perdition is expressed by St. Paul 
elsewhere by the term ἀπολλύμενον κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης. 
Mark the contrast with ἀληθείας, ver. 24; τῆς ἀπάτης, not as in 
AV. a genitive of quality, but a subjective genitive, ἀπάτη being 
almost personified, not, indeed, by the article alone, but by the 
attributing to it of ἐπιθυμίαι. It is the deceitful power of sin. Cf. 
ἀπάτη τῆς ἁμαρτίας, Heb. ili. 13, and Rom. vii. 11, ἡ ἁμαρτία 
ἐξαπάτησέ pe. Hence the ἐπιθυμίαι derive their power 7) ἁμαρτία 
.. . κατειργάσατο πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν, 76. 8. It is quite against N.T. 
usage to understand ἀπάτη here as “error.” Compare ἀπάτη τοῦ 
πλούτου, Matt. xili, 22; ἀπ. ἀδικίας, 2 Thess. 11. το. 

κατά, “in accordance with,” z.e. as their nature implies. 

23. ἀνανεοῦσθαι. Passive, not middle, for the middle of this 
verb is always used transitively, in an active signification. Nor 
would it be Pauline to represent the renewal as springing from the 
man himself. Compare also ἀνακαινούμενον, Col. 111. το. 

It may be questioned whether ava- here implies restoration to 
a former state, as is generally assumed. In classical writers 
ἀνανεοῦσθαι means ‘to restore” ; but then the object expresses the 
original state, etc., which is thus brought into force or existence 
again, ἀν. ὅρκους, φιλίαν, etc. That is not the sense here, or in 
Col. il. το, of ἀνακαινοῦσθαι. Here the object is ὑμᾶς, and the 
meaning is, not that ye are to be brought out of a state of sus- 
pended existence, but that ye are to be changed so as to become veo‘. 
What ἀνα- implies, therefore, is simply change, and the meaning of 
the verb is to be illustrated by that of similar compounds of verbs 
derived from adjectives, where these adjectives would express the 
result of the action of the verbs. Such are: ἀνισόω, “ to equalise ” ; 
ἀναπληρόω, ‘to fill”; ἀνακοινόω, ‘to Communicate” ; ἀνιερόω, “to 
consecrate,” 2.6. to make ἴσος, πληρής, κοινός, ἱερός. 

τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν. ‘This is understood of the Holy 
Spirit by Oecumenius and Theophylact, followed by Fritzsche, 
Ellicott, and others (the genitive being thus possessive), the 
*‘(Divine) Spirit united with the human πνεῦμα, with which the νοῦς 
as subject is endued, and of which it is the receptaculum.” But 
this would be entirely without parallel. The Holy Spirit is never 
called τὸ πνεῦμα ὑμῶν OF τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν, nor, indeed, does it seem 
possible that it should be so designated. The spirit ‘of the νοῦς of 
a man must be the man’s spirit. πνεῦμα, in the sense of the Holy 
Spirit, is sometimes followed by a characterising genitive “of holi- 
ἐκ 28 ΠΩΣ adoption,” Of, apaine) “Sot Christ,” τ of God”; never “ of 

s,” or “of you.” ‘This interpretation is particularly out of place 
if ee i is taken as depending on ἐδιδάχθητε. Bengel’s 1η- 
terpretation is doubtless the correct one, “spiritus est intimum 


138 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [IV. 24 


mentis,” the higher principle of life. In Rom. vil. we see νοῦς pro- 
nouncing approval of the law, but unable to resist the motions of sin, 
for it has no motive power. In ch. viii. we see the πνεῦμα inspired 
by God, and we have a description of the man who is évaveovpevos 
TO πνεύματι τοῦ voos αὐτοῦ. For the distinction between νοῦς and 
πνεῦμα compare, further, 1 Cor. xiv. 14, τὸ πνεῦμά pov προσεύ- 
xetat, 6 δὲ νοῦς μου ἀκαρπός ἐστι. The expression here used is 
thus quite in harmony with St. Paul’s usage elsewhere. But in 
Rom. xii. 2 the νοῦς is said to be renewed, μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ 
ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νούς. 

24. καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. Note the correctness 
of the tenses: ἀποθέσθαι and ἐνδύσασθαι aorists, because a single 
act is meant; ἀνανεοῦσθαι present, because a continuing process. 
So in the parallel Col. 111. 9, 10, καινός differs from νέος in that the 
latter refers only to time, new, not long in existence, the former to 
quality also, as opposed to effeteness: cf. Heb. viii. 13. The καινὸς 
avOp., like the καινὴ διαθήκη, is always καινός, but not always νεός. 

kata Θεόν. Compare Col. ill. 10, τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον 
εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν. From the parallel, 
Meyer and Ellicott conclude that κατὰ Θεόν -- “ad exemplum Dei,” 
there being an allusion to Gen. 1. 27. Meyer compares Gal. iv. 28, 
κατὰ Ισαάκ. But in Col. it is just the word εἰκόνα that expresses 
the idea sought to be introduced here. That κατ᾽ εἰκόνα means 
“after the likeness of,” is no proof that κατά =‘‘after the likeness 
of.” κατά in that phrase means “‘after the manner of,” and if so 
taken here it would imply that the parallelism was in the action of 
the verb, 24. that God was κτισθείς. For a similar reason 1 Pet. 
i. 15 is not parallel, κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι. 

κατὰ Θεόν occurs 2 Cor. vil. 9, 10, 11 =“‘in a godly manner,” 
and this suggests the true interpretation, viz. “according to the 
will of God.” It may be said that this is flat compared with the 
other view; but if so, that does not justify us in giving κατά an 
unexampled sense. 

ev δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας. The AV. “righteousness 
and true holiness” is doubly wrong; in connecting the genitive 
with the latter substantive only, and in resolving it adjectivally. 
The Bishops’ Bible was correct, ‘in righteousness and holiness of 
truth.” Yet Chrysostom understood the words as meaning true 
as opposed to false, du«. and ὅσ. The usual distinction between 
these substantives is that ὁσιότης has reference to God, δικαιοσύνη to 
men; so Plato, Philo, and other Greek writers distinctively state ; 
but Plato tells us in one place that δικαιοσύνη was a general term 
including ὁσιότης ; in fact, it meant righteousness or propriety of 
conduct in itself. In the N.T. the adjectives are combined in Tit. 
i. 8, the adverbs in 1 Thess. il. 10, and the substantives in Luke 
i. 75 and Clem. Rom. Cor. 48. In 1 Tim. 11. 8, ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους 


IV. 25, 26| WARNING AGAINST SPECIAL SINS 139 


χεῖρας χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμῶν, the added words do not define 
the ὁσιότης. The hands are ὅσιοι when not unfitted to be lifted 
up in prayer. Nor is the use of ὅσιος with ἀρχιερεύς, Heb. vii. 26, 
at all peculiar. ὅσιος occurs thrice in the Acts in quotations from 
the O.T. which do not concern St. Paul’s usage. Here, as in 
Luke i. 75 and Wisd. ix. 5, the words seem used in a way which 
had become familiar as a summary of human virtue. The sugges- 
tion that δικαιοσύνη is in contrast to πλεονεξία, and ὁσιότης to 
ἀκαθαρσία (Olsh. Alf. Ell.), has against it, not only the distance 
from ver. 19, and the ἐν there (not καί), but also the fact that these 
are not the proper opposites. The opposite of ἀκαθ. is not ὁσιότης 
but ἁγνότης ; and δικαιοσύνη is very much more than the opposite 
of πλεονεξία in any sense of that word. 

τῆς ἀληθείας. DG, It., Cypr. Hil. read καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. 

25-32. Warning against special sins. 

25. Διὸ ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος. There is no need to render 
“having put away,” which would seem to imply a separation in 
time between the two actions. The aorist suits the Greek idiom, 
as falsehood is to be put away once for all; but “putting away” 
agrees better with the English. 

ψεῦδος, “falsehood,” is, of course, suggested by ἀλήθεια ; it is 
more general than “lying,” which is mentioned immediately after as 
the most obvious example of it. So Col. iii. 8, μὴ ψεύδεσθε. But τὸ 
ψεῦδος is falsehood in all its forms; cf. Rom. i. 25; Rev. xxii. 15. 

μετά is more forcible than πρός (Zech. vili. 16), implying “in 
your mutual intercourse.” 

ὅτι ἐσμὲν ἀλλήλων μέλη. Chrysostom carries out the figure ina 
striking manner, e.g. if the eye sees a serpent, does it deceive the 
foot? if the tongue tastes what is bitter, does it deceive the 
stomach? etc. This is passable in a homily, but in the text the 
argument is not at all founded on the figure, but on the fact that 
we are members of the body of Christ: ‘est enim monstrum si 
membra inter se non consentiant, imo se fraudulenter inter se 
agant,” Calvin; cf. Rom. xii. 5, τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς ἀλλήλων μέλη. AS 
each member belongs to the rest, they may be called members 
one of the other. Comp, 1 Corsa, το: 

26. ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε. These words are a quotation 
from Ps:/iv. 5 (GV. 4), ΚΝ “Stand=in ‘awe, and. sin. not? 
But expositors so diverse in their views as Hitzig and Delitzsch 
agree with the rendering of the LXX. The Hebrew verb primarily 
means “to tremble,” and unless it were followed by “before me,” 
or the like, could not mean definitely “stand in awe.” It occurs 
in Prov. xxix. 9 and’ Isa. xxviii. 21 in the sense “to be angry.” 
It is, however, superfluous, as far as the present passage is con- 
cerned, to inquire what the meaning of the original is. St. Paul 
is not arguing from the words, but adopting them as well known, 


140 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [IV. 26 


and as expressing the precept he wishes to inculcate. The sense 
here is sufficiently intelligible, “ita irascamini ut ne peccetis.” 
The key is Bengel’s remark, ‘‘saepe vis modi cadit super partem 
duntaxat sermonis.” oa Matt. xi. 25, “1 thank Thee that Thou 
hast hid these things,” etc.; Rom. vi. 17, “Thanks be to God 
that ye were the τοῦς of sin, but,” etc. Had St) ΕΒ. ΠῚ ΘΕ 
been quoting from the O.T., he would probably have expressed 
himself differently, e τρις: ΕΣ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε, or the like. The 
phrase is frequently explained by reference to what is called the 
Hebrew idiom (which is by no means peculiarly Hebrew) of com- 
bining two imperatives, so that the former expresses the condition, 
the latter the result, as in Amos v. 4, “‘Seek Me and live.” But 
this would make the words mean, “‘ Be angry, and so ye shall not 
sin.” Olshausen takes the first imperative hypothetically, “If ye 
are angry, as it is to be foreseen that it will happen, do not sin 
in anger.” For, he says, “‘man’s anger is never in itself just and 
permissible.” God’s alone is holy and just. This is fallacious, 
for anger is only in a figure attributed to God, and would not be 
so if all human anger were wrong. Besides, such a meaning 
would require ἀλλά, or the like, instead of καί Indeed, no one 
acquainted with Butler’s classical discourse on Resentment would 
accept Olshausen’s statement. Apart from sudden (or instinctive) 
anger, which was intended to prevent sudden harm, deliberate 
anger is lawfully aroused by injustice. “It is in us connected 
with a sense of virtue and vice, and in the form of indignation on 
behalf of others is one of the common bonds by which society is 
held together” (cf. Rom. xiii. 4). Nor can the fact that the injury 
is done to ourselves make it unlawful. It becomes so when in- 
dulged where no injustice was intended, or when it is out of pro- 
portion, or when harm is inflicted merely to gratify it. Our Lord was 
angry, Mark iii. 5. Beza, Grotius, and others have taken ὀργίζεσθε 
interrogatively, which is inconsistent with its being a quotation. 

ὃ ἥλιος μὴ ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν. 

τῷ is added before παροργισμῷ in Rec., with most MSS. and 
Fathers, but is absent from 8* AB, Alford thinks it may have been 
omitted to give indefiniteness. But it is much more likely to have 
been added for grammatical reasons. 


Ilapopy:oués is not found in profane authors; it occurs several times in 
the LXX., but usually of the sins by which Israel ‘‘ provoked” the Lord, 
e.g. 1 Kings xv. 30. Im Jer. xxi. 5, in Cod. Alex., it occurs in the sense 
‘‘anger.” The verb is found (in the passive) in Demosth. 805. 19; in the 
active, in this Epistle, vi. 4. παροργισμός appears to be distinguished from 
ὀργή as implying a less permanent state, ‘‘ irritation.” 


There is no reason to suppose a reference to the night as 
tending to nouris) anger (“‘affectus noctu retentus alte insidet,” 
Bengel after Chrys.). The precept simply means, as Estius 


IV. 27, 28 | WARNING AGAINST SPECIAL SINS 141 


observes, “let the day of your anger be the day of your recon- 
ciliation,” for the new day began at sunset. The Pythagoreans, 
as Plutarch informs us, observed the same rule, εἴποτε προσαχθεῖεν 
εἰς λοιδορίας ὑπ᾽ ὀργῆς, πρὶν ἢ τὸν ἥλιον δῦναι, τὰς δεξίας ἐμβάλλοντες 
ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἀσπασάμενοι διελύοντο (Plut. De Am. Frat. 488 B). 
Eadie quotes a quaint comment from Fuller, “Let us take the 
apostle’s meaning rather than his words—with all possible speed 
to depose our passion, not understanding him so literally that we 
may take leave to be angry till sunset, then might our wrath 
lengthen with the days; and men in Greenland, where days last 
above a quarter of a year, have plentiful scope of revenge.” 

27. μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ: The Rec. has μήτε, with 
most cursives; all the uncials apparently have μηδέ. μήτε would 
imply that St. Paul might have said μήτε. . . μήτε, but wrote 
py in the first clause, because not then thinking of the second. 
Such a usage, 7). . - pyre, is so rare in classical authors that 
some scholars have denied its existence, and it is not elsewhere 
found in St. Paul. The distinction between μήτε... μήτε and 
μηδέ... μηδέ, according to Hermann and others, is that the 
former divide a single negation into parts which are mutually 
exclusive; and neither negation gives a complete whole; thus 
corresponding to “neither... neither.” Comp. Matt. vi. 26, 
οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν, “they sow not, and 
they reap not, and gather not”; Matt. xii. 32, οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ 
αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι, “neither in this world nor in the future,” 
these being, the two divisions of οὐκ ἀρεθήσεται. 

δίδοτε τόπον, 7.6. room to act, since indulgence in angry feelings 
leads to hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness. Comp. Rom. 
Xll. 19, δότε τόξον τῇ ἘΠῚ 

τῷ διαβόλῳ. 6 διάβολος is used by St. Paul only in this and 
the Pastorals. Erasmus, Luther, and others understand the word 
here as simply “calumniator,” and so the Syriac. But elsewhere 
in N.T. 6 διάβολος always means “the devil.” In 1 Tim. 111. 11; 
2 Tim. ill. 3; Tit. ii. 3, the word is used as an adjective. 

28. ὃ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω. Not “qui furabatur,” as Vulg., 
an attempt to soften the proper force of the word. Jerome miti- 
gates the word in a different way, interpreting it of everything 
“quod alterius damno quaeritur,” and favours the application to 
the ‘“‘furtum spirituale” of the false prophets. The present parti- 
ciple seems intermediate between ὁ κλέψας and ὃ κλέπτης. 

μᾶλλον δὲ komdrw, rather, on the contrary, let him labour, 
ἐργαζόμενος ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν τό ἀγαθόν. 


There is a considerable variety of reading here— 

ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν τὸ ἀγαθόν, X* ADG, Vulg. Clarom. Goth. Arm, 
ταῖς χερσὶν τὸ ἀγαθόν, 8*B, Amiat., Ambrosiaster. 

τὸ ἀγαθὸν ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν, K 10 mss., Theodoret. 


142 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [τ 29 


τὸ ἀγαθὸν ταῖς χερσίν, L most mss., Chrys. Theoph. Oecum, 

The chief question is as to the genuineness of ἰδίαις. On the one hand, it is 
suggested that it may have been intentionally omitted because its force was 
not perceived, and so it was thought to be superfluous ; on the other hand, 
that it may be an interpolation from 1 Cor. iv. 12. Against the former 
suggestion is the circumstance that in the passage in Cor., where the word 
might with even more reason be thought superfluous, no copyist has omitted 
it. The insertion, on the other hand, was very natural. The case of τὸ 
ἀγαθόν is very different. The variation in its position is, indeed, suspicious, 
and a nearer definition of ἐργαζόμενοι might have seemed necessary (since, as 
Chrys. observes, ὁ κλέπτων ἐργάζεται, ἀλλὰ κακόν), and Gal. vi. 10 would then 
suggest τὸ ἀγαθόν ; but the only authority for its omission is Tertullian (es. 
Carn. 45). 


τὸ ἀγαθόν. ‘‘Antitheton ad furtum prius manu piceata male 
commissum,” Bengel. 

ἵνα ἔχῃ μεταδιδόναι τῷ χρείαν ἔχοντι. The motive here alleged 
is striking and characteristic, although surely we cannot say, with 
Olshausen and Ellicott, that this is the true specific object of all 
Christian labour; unless by ‘‘Christian labour” is meant labour 
over and above what is necessary for the labourer’s own subsistence. 
That, by the law of nature, is the first object, unless we include 
with it the support of his own family. 

Schoettgen infers from this clause that there were some who 
thought their thefts might be atoned for by almsgiving ; and he 
quotes passages from Jewish writers which refer to such a delu- 
sion (Yalkut Rubeni, f. rro. 4; Vayyiqra Rabba, f. 147. 1). Not, 
indeed, that there was any such “‘ Jewish opinion,” as some writers 
assert. But the precept here is too general to be so understood, 
it simply (as Meyer remarks) opposes to unlawful taking, dutiful 
giving. 

29. πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω. 
The negative belongs to the verb; cf. Rom. ili. 20; Gal. i. τό, 
ov δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ: τ Cor. i. 29, ὅπως μὴ κανχήσηται πᾶσα 
σάρξ. The expression is quite logical; whereas in English, if we 
say ‘‘all flesh shall not be justified,” the negative really belongs to 
“all,” not to the verb. 

campos is primarily “rotten, diseased,” hence in classical writers 
“disgusting.” In the N.T. it is used of a “worthless” tree, Matt. 
vii. 17, xii. 33; fish, Matt. xi. 48. It is clear, therefore, that the 
word does not of itself mean “filthy,” and Chrys. interprets it as 
meaning ὃ μὴ τὴν ἰδίαν χρείαν πληροῖ (fom. iv. on Tim.), and 
Theodoret makes it include αἰσχρολογία, λοιδορία, συκοφαντία, 
βλασφημία, Wevdoroyia, καὶ τὰ τούτοις προσόμοια. With this we 
might compare πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀργόν, Matt. xi. 36. But although 
campos, used of material things, may mean simply what is only fit 
to be thrown away, just as “rotten” is colloquially used by English 
schoolboys, it may be questioned whether in connexion with 
λόγος it must not have a more specific meaning, something, 


IV. 30] WARNING AGAINST SPECIAL SINS 143 


perhaps, like our word “foul” used of language, including, like it, 
not merely “filthy,” but scurrilous language. So Arrian opposes 
σαπροὶ λόγοι to κομψοί (Diss. Epict. ili. 16, p. 298, ap. Kypke) 
ἀλλὰ εἴ τις ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας. For χρείας there 
is a remarkable variant, πίστεως, in D* G, Vulg-Clem. (but Amiat. 
has χρείας) Goth. Jerome expressly says: “ pro eo quod nos 
posuimus ad aedificationem opportunitatis, hoc est quod dicitur 
Graece τῆς χρείας, in Latinis codicibus propter euphoniam mutavit 
interpres et posuit ad aedificationem fidet.” 


χρείας is the reading of δὲ A BK LP and nearly all mss. and versions. 
It is somewhat curious that in Rom. xii. 13, D*G substitute μνείαις for 


χρείαις. 


εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας, by no means for εἰς xp. τῆς oik., as 

AV. χρείας is the objective genitive ; the actual “need ”” or 

“occasion” is that which is to be affected by the edifying influence 
of the discourse. In Acts vi. 3 the word seems to mean “ occa- 
sion” or “matter in hand” (“whom we may set over this xp.”). 
Field aptly cites Plutarch, V7v. Leritl. Viil., μηδὲ ἡ ῥῆμα μηδὲν ἐκπεσεῖν 
ἄκοντος αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὴν προκειμένην χρείαν ἀν ἄρμοστον. Thus the 
sense is ‘‘for the improvement of the occasion.” So in substance 
Theophylact: ὅπερ οἰκοδομεῖ τὸν πλήσιον ἀναγκαῖον ὃν TH προκειμένῃ 
χρείᾳ, and Jerome: ““πχία opportunitatem loci temporis et 
personae aedificare audientes.” Olshausen and Ruckert take 
χρεία as abstract for concrete = those that have need, which would 
make τῆς χρείας superfluous. 

ἵνα δῷ χάριν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν. ‘That it may give benefit to 
them that hear.” 

δῷ χάριν has been variously interpreted. Chrysostom somewhat 
strangely understands it to mean ‘‘make the hearer grateful,” ἵνα 
χάριν σοι εἰδῇ ὁ ὃ ἀκούων, but adding as an alternative, ἵνα κεχαριτω- 
μένους αὐτοὺς ἐργάσηται. Theodoret observes, χάριν τὴν θυμηδίαν 
ἐκάλεσε" τουτέστιν ἵνα φανῇ δεκτὸς τοῖς ax. But edifying discourse 
cannot always be acceptable, nor should this be the object aimed 
at; nor, again, does δίδοναι χάριν ever have this meaning. Said of 
persons, it means to grant a favour. But Plutarch has the phrase 
with reference to food given to invalids: οὐδεμίαν ἡδόνην οὐδὲ χάριν 
ἀποδίδωσι, “it confers neither pleasure nor benefit.” And in N.T. 
χάρις is similarly used, as in 2 Cor. i. 15, “that ye might have a 
second y.”; viii. 6, ‘that he would complete in you this x. also.” 
But as χάρις has a specially spiritual meaning in the N.T. generally, 
there is no reason to deny such a reference here. 

30. καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον tod Θεοῦ. The con- 
nexion with the foregoing is well expressed by Theophylact: ἐὰν 
εἴπῃς ῥῆμα σαπρὸν Kal ἀνάξιον τοῦ χριστιανοῦ στόματος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπον 
ἐλύπησας, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, The warning assumes the 


144 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS _ [IV. 81, 82 


indwelling of the Spirit, and vividly expresses the offence done to 
that Spirit by such sins of the tongue. Aquinas weakens it by 
referring it to grieving the Spirit of God in others. 

ev © ἐσφραγίσθητε. ‘This supplies the ground of the motive. 
εἶτα καὶ ἢ προσθηκὴ τῆς εὐεργεσίας, ἵνα μείζων γένηται ἣ κατηγορία, 
Chrys. Some of the older as well as later commentators see in 
the words a suggestion that the Spirit may thus be led to depart, 
and the seal be lost. Had this been intended, μὴ παροξύνετε would 
have been more suitable. But there is no suggestion of a possible 
departure of the Spirit; even the tense of ἐσφραγίσθητε, referring 
as 1t does to a sealing once for all, is against this. But it would 
be equally erroneous to say that the doctrine of “final persever- 
ance” is contained or implied. When a son is warned that if he 
acts in such and such a manner he will grieve his father, this does 
not suggest that his father may cast him off. 

εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπολυτρώσεως, 2.6. for, or with a view to, the day of 
complete redemption. On dod. cf. 1. 14. 

31. πᾶσα πικρία, “every kind of bitterness,” the temper which 
cherishes resentful feelings. Aristotle defines the πικροί as ‘hard 
to be reconciled” (δυσδιάλυτοι), and retaining their anger for a 
long time. 

kat θυμὸς καὶ ὀργή. These flow from the temper of πικρία, pila 
θυμοῦ καὶ ὀργῆς πικρία, Chrys. Of these two, θυμός expresses 
rather the temporary excitement of passion ; ὀργή, the more settled 
anger. Thus Greg. Naz. Carm. 34, θυμὸς μέν. ἐστιν ἀθρόος ζέσις 
φρενός, ὀργὴ δὲ θυμὸς ἐμμένων. Hence Ecclus. xlviil. 10, κοπάσαι 
ὀργὴν πρὸ θυμοῦ, before it bursts out. The Stoics defined θυμός as 
ὀργὴ ἀρχομένη (Diog. Laert. vil. 114). 

καὶ κραυγὴ καὶ βλασφημία. Chrysostom well observes: ἵππος 
γάρ ἐστιν ἀναβάτην φέρων ἡ κραυγὴ τὴν ὀργήν" συμπόδισον τὸν ἵππον, 
καὶ κατέστρεψας τὸν ἀναβάτην. κραυγή leads to βλασφημία, which 
is clearly ‘‘reviling,” not “ blasphemy.” 

σὺν πάσῃ κακίᾳ. Associated also in Col. 11. ὃ with ὀργή, 
θυμός, and βλασφημία, to which is there added αἰσχρολογία. It is 
not badness in general, but ‘‘ malice,” “‘animi pravitas, quae 
humanitati et aeqguitati est opposita.” So Suidas: ἡ τοῦ κακῶσαι 
τὸν πέλας σπουδή. It is the very opposite of what follows. 

82.-V. 2. Exhortation to be tender-hearted and forgiving, follow- 
ing as a pattern Goa’s forgiveness in Christ. 

82. γίνεσθε δέ, “ become, show yourselves.” Corresponding to 
ἀρθήτω ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν on the other side. χρηστοί, “kind.” This is the 
only place in the Epistles where the adjective occurs ; it is used of 
God in Luke vi. 35 ; so the substantive, ch. ii. 7; Tit. ili. 4, etc. 

εὔσπλαγχνοι, ‘“tender-hearted,” in this sense only in biblical 
and ecclesiastical writers. Hippocrates has it in the physical 
sense, “having healthy bowels.” Euripides uses the substantive 


IV. 32] WARNING AGAINST SPECIAL SINS 145 


εὐσπλαγχνία in the sense “firmness of heart.” The adjective 
occurs in the same sense as here in the Prayer of Manasses, 7, 
and in Zest. ΧΟ Patr., of God. Comp. the parallel Col. ili. 12, 
σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ. 

χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς -- (]. iii. 12. Origen presses ἑαυτοῖς as 
indicating that what was done to another was really done to them- 
selves, διὰ τὸ συσσώμους ἡμᾶς εἶναι; Meyer and Alford think it 
implies that the forgiveness they are to show to others has as its 
pattern that which was shown to them as a body in Christ, ἑαυτοῖς 
being thus emphatic. In Col. ill. 12, also, we have ἀνεχόμενοι 
ἀλλήλων καὶ χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς, and again, τ Pet. iv. 8-10, τὴν εἰς 
ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες. . . φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους. . . εἰς 
ἑαυτοὺς [τὸ χάρισμα] διακονοῦντες. We are not justified in putting 
so much into the word as Meyer’s explanation supposes ; but so 
much is true, that ἑαυτοῖς suggests, more than ἀλλήλοις, that they 
are addressed as members of one corporate body. This use of 
the word is quite classical Demosthenes has βούλεσθε... 
περιίοντες αὑτῶν πυνθάνεσθαι (p. 43, το). Comp. also Xen. AZem. 111. 
5. τό (quoted by Lightfoot on Col.), ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ συνεργεῖν ἑαυτοῖς 
τὰ συμφέροντα, ἐπηρεάζουσιν ἀλλήλοις, καὶ φθονοῦσιν ἑαυτοῖς μᾶλλον 
ἢ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις... καὶ προαιροῦνται μᾶλλον οὕτω κερδαίνειν 
ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων ἢ συνωφελοῦντες αὑτοῦς. Also Dem. Ad. 101, p. 547. 

The Vulgate has erroneously “ donantes,” and Erasmus, “ lar- 
gientes,” but the following context shows that the word must 
mean ‘‘ forgiving.” 

καθὼς καί, the same motive that is appealed to in the Parable 
of the Unforgiving Servant. 

ὁ Θεὸς ἐν Χριστῷ. “In Christ,” not “for Christ’s sake,” as AV., 
for which there is no justification. ‘The sense is the same as in 
2 Cor. v. 19, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto 
Himself.” Not “per Christum” (Calvin), nor even μετὰ τοῦ κινδύνου 
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Kal τῆς σφαγῆς αὐτοῦ (Theoph.), of which there is no 
hint in the ἐν; but, as in the passage in 2 Cor., God manifesting 
Himself in, acting in (not “ through”), Christ. Hence in Col. iit. 
13 it is 6 Κύριος ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν. 


ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν. The readings here and in ch. v. 2 vary between the 
second and the first person. 
In iv. 32 ὑμῖν is read by SNAGP 37, Vulg. (Clem.) Goth. Sah. Boh. 
Eth. ἡμῖν by Ὁ ΚΙ, 17, 47, both Syr. Arm. 
In v. 2 ὑμᾶς by SAB P 37, Sah. Eth. ἡμᾶς by 8SDGKL 17 47, Vulg. 
Syr. (both) Boh. Goth. Arm. 
fb. ὑμῶν by B 37, Sah. Eth. ἡμῶν by SADGKLP 17 47, Vulg, 
Syr. (both) Boh. Goth. Arm. 
Or, to put it otherwise, we have— 
mu. in all three places, D K L 17 47, Syr. Arm. 
tm. in all three, Sah. Eth. 
ὑμ. ὑμ. ἡμ., NAP. 
10 


146 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [v.1 


ὑμ. ἡμ. ἣμ.» S° Vulg. Goth, 
ἡμ. UE. ὑμ., B. 
Critics differ in their judgment. Lachmann (judging in the absence of 

δ) reads 7m. in all three places. Tischendorf (Sth ed.) and Tregelles adopt 
bu. ὑμ. nu. (Treg., however, in iv. 32, giving ἡμῖν a place in the margin). So 
WH. (who place 7. in the margin in the first and third places). So vy. Soden 
and RV. (with ju. in the mg. in the first place and ὑμ. in the third). Alford, 
Ellicott, and Eadie prefer du. ju. Au. The confusion of the two pronouns 
is very frequent. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, the reading 
adopted in RV. seems to have the advantage. The evidence for ὑμῶν in the 
third place is comparatively small, and it is very natural that St. Paul, while 
using the second person in close connexion with the precepts χαριζόμενοι, 
περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ, should pass from that to the more general statement in 
the first person. Indeed, it is perhaps not going too far to say that while 
“God forgave you,” ‘‘ Christ loved you,” are perfectly natural, it would not 
seem so natural to say, ‘‘ Christ gave Himself for you,” although the individual 
believer may say, ‘‘ He gave Himself for me,” Gal. ii. 20. 

ἐχαρίσατο, “forgave,” as referring to a past historical fact. Note 
that in Col. iii. 13 it is ὁ Κύριος, with 6 Χριστός in some texts. 

V. 1. γίνεσθε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘ Become therefore imitators 
of God.” γίνεσθε resumes the γίνεσθε of iv. 32. The words of 
that verse, ‘‘forgiving . . . as God forgave you,” show that the 
imitation inculcated is in respect of this particular virtue, and the 
οὖν, therefore, connects this verse with that immediately preced- 
ing, not with the whole foregoing subject. Imitators of God! 
The idea is a grand and ennobling one ; and our Lord Himself sets 
it before us, and in the same aspect, when He says, “ Ye there- 
fore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” namely, 
in that ‘‘He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, 
and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust” (Matt. v. 45, 48). 
So that we also should love our enemies. 

The forgiveness inculcated is obviously free forgiveness, as in 
the passage just cited and in the Lord’s Prayer. ‘That this is here 
placed on the ground of imitation of God’s forgiveness is a decisive 
proof that St. Paul did not view the Atonement in the light of 
payment of a debt or endurance of a penalty demanded by Divine 
justice. The most unforgiving of men, if not actually vindictive, 
might say, I am quite ready to forgive on the same terms on 
which you say that God forgives, viz. that the debt be fully paid, 
the offence fully atoned for. Chrysostom has a fine comment on 
this “forgiving one another.” ‘There is a great difference, he says, 
between God’s forgiveness and ours, “‘for, if thou forgivest, the 
other will in turn forgive thee; but to God thou hast forgiven 
nought. And thou to thy fellow-servant, but God to His servant, 
and His enemy, and him that hateth Him. And He did not for- 
give simply without peril, but with the peril of His Son. For that 
He might forgive thee He sacrificed the Son,—rov Υἱὸν ἔθυσε, --- 
but thou, although often seeing forgiveness to be without peril or 
expense, dost not exercise it.” 


V. 2] THE DIVINE PATTERN OF LOVE 147 


ὡς τέκνα ἀγαπητά, 7.6. as children beloved of God. He adds, 
says Chrys., another obligation of imitating God, not only because 
He has conferred benefits on us, but because we are His children, 
nay, His beloved children. “ If God so loved us, we also ought 
to love one another.” 

2. καὶ περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ, specifying, further, wherein the 
imitation of God is to be shown. Love is to be the rule of our 
life. 

καθὼς καὶ ὃ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν ὑμᾶς, καὶ παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ 
ἡμῶν. Compare John xiii. 34, “as I have loved you, that ye also 
love one another.” καὶ παρέδωκεν expresses wherein this love was 
shown. So ver. 25, “loved the Church, and gave Himself for 
it”; Gal. ii. 20, “loved me, and gave Himself for me.” ‘The verb 
requires no supplement, such as εἰς θάνατον or τῷ Θεῷ ; see Rom. 
Vill. 32 ; Gal. 11. 20, and ver. 25. wzép, “on behalf of.” 

προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ: τῷ Θεῷ is best connected with 
these words for the reason just mentioned ; not with the follow- 
ing, since this would suppose the words placed emphatically 
before εἰς ὀσμήν, as if to exclude the idea of human pleasure, 
which is out of the question. προσφορά and θυσία are sometimes 
said to specify respectively an unbloody and a bloody offering ; but 
such a distinction cannot be maintained either in classical or 
biblical Greek. The idea of “sacrifice” in θύω is not derived 
from that of slaying, but of “smoking,” ‘ burning incense.” This 
was, according to Aristarchus, the meaning of the verb in Homer; 
cf. Latin τ fumus,” “ subfio,” which are from the same root. For 
biblical usage see Gen. iv. 3; Num. vil. 49, 73, etc. The alleged 
sense would be especially out of harmony with the figurative use of 
θυσία in St. Paul, θυσία ζῶσα, Rom. xii. 1; cf. Phil. ii. 17, iv. 18. 
Ellicott supposes that προσφορά is used as the more general term, 
relating, not to the death only, but to the life of obedience of our 
blessed Lord, His θυσία ζῶσα ; while θυσία refers more particularly 
to His atoning death. The words appear, however, to be borrowed 
from Ps. xl. 6 (quoted Heb. x. 5), where they are used simply as 
together including all kinds of ceremonial offering. 

εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας. ‘ For a sweet-smelling savour.” The figure 
was founded originally on the heathen idea that the smell of the 
burnt sacrifice did literally ascend to the gods, who thereby 
participated with the worshipper in the sacred feast. So in 
Homer often ; see especially Il, xxiv. 69, 70, οὐ γάρ μοί ποτε 
βωμὸς ἐδεύετο Sues εἴσης, Λοιβῆς τε κνίσης TE τὸ γὰρ λάχομεν γέρας 
ἡμεῖς. It is appropriate only to a burnt-offering. 

That St. Paul here speaks of Christ as a “sacrifice cannot, of 
course, be denied. But does he do so by way of stating the 
nature or manner of the atonement? Surely not. There is not 
one word to hint at the relation of this sacrifice to God’s forgive- 


148 THE EPISTLE TO) THE EPHESIANS [v. 3 


ness. On the contrary, God in Christ forgiving us, and Christ 
showing His love by His offering of Himself, are put forward as 
exactly parallel examples ; indeed, in view of the parallel in Col., 
ὁ Κύριος ἐχαρίσατο, we might say as one and the same. It is this 
single aspect of Christ’s sacrifice as a supreme exhibition of love on 
the part both of the Father and of the Son that is here presented. 
Indeed, in Rom. viii. 32 the very same word παρέδωκε is used of 
the Father that is here used of the Son. And if we cannot argue 
as if the apostle were here stating the essential nature of the 
atonement, still less are we justified in assuming that he had in 
his mind the “ substitutionary ” view of sacrifice. Whatever the 
original idea of sacrifice may have been (and certainly the substi- 
tutionary view is not the only one possible), neither psalmists nor 
apostles seem to have had this idea present to their minds whenever 
they spoke of sacrifice. The psalmist speaks of sacrificing thanks- 
giving and praise (Ps. 1. 14); St. Paul, of his offering of the Gentiles 
(Rom. xv. 16). In Rom, xii. 1, already quoted, he calls on his readers 
to present their bodies as a sacrifice. In Phil. 11. 17 he represents 
himself as offering their faith as a sacrifice ; and in the same Ep., 
iv. 18, he calls their present to him a sacrifice, an odour of a 
sweet savour. With the exception of 1 Cor. x. 18 (‘they that eat 
of the sacrifices 7), these are the only passages beside the present 
in which he uses the words. ‘This gives little support to the 
notion that we are to interpret his words here as if we were 
dealing with a treatise on scientific theology. 

Chrysostom certainly does not err in this way. He observes: 
ὁρᾷς, TO ὑπὲρ ἐχθρῶν παθεῖν, ὅτι ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας ἐστί, καὶ θυσία 
εὐπροσδεκτός; κἂν ἀποθάνῃς, τότε ἔσῃ θυσία τοῦτο μιμήσασθαί 
ἐστι τὸν Θεόν. 

8-11. Special warnings against sins of impurity. 

8. πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα ἢ πλεονεξία μηδὲ ὀνομαϊζέσθω 
ἐν ὑμῖν. 

πορνεία is mentioned as being a sin of little account 
amongst the Gentiles. On πλεονεξία see iv. 19. This passage, 
says Moule, more perhaps than any other, suggests that the word 
(πλεονεξία) had acquired by usage, in St. Paul’s time, a familiar 
though not fixed connexion with sezswa/ greed, just such as our 
word ‘“covetousness” has acquired with the greed of material 
property. It is urged here that 7 indicates that the two words 
between which it stands belong to different classes. But in the 
following verse we have ἢ between pwpodroyia and εὐτραπελία, 
which do not belong to different classes. 

μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσθω. Herodotus says of the Persians : ἅσσα δέ σφι 
ποιέειν οὐκ ἔξεστι, ταῦτα οὐδὲ λέγειν ἔξεστι (1. 138). But St. Paul’s 
precept refers to particular classes of sin only. Compare ver. 12. 
ot yap λόγοι τῶν πραγμάτων εἰσὶν ὁδοί, Chrys. Bengel suggests 


Vv. 4] WARNING AGAINST IMPURITY 149 


for ὀνομ. “mentioned as committed,” “ut facta”; cf. ἀκούεται ἐν 
ὑμῖν πορνεία, I Cor. ν. 1. But, besides that ὀνομ. can hardly mean 
this, μηδέ, “ not even,” is decisive against it. 
4. kat αἰσχρότης καὶ μωρολογία ἢ εὐτραπελία. 
, The MSS. and Vss. vary between καί and ἤ in the first and second 
aces. 
Ρ AD*G, It. Vulg. Sah. have #.. - ἢ: 
N*B D°¢K, Boh. Eth. have cal... kal. 
N* P, Syr-Harcl. Arm. have καὶ -- - 4. 
Lachmann writes #.. . #, Tischendorf, RV. cal... ἤ, WH. kal... καί. 
αἰσχρότης is not merely “foolish talking,” which would be 
aicxpoAoyia, but “shameful conduct.” Plato has (of Rhada- 
manthus inspecting the souls of the dead): dovpperpias τε καὶ 
αἰσχρότητος γέμουσαν τὴν ψυχὴν εἶδεν (Gorg. 525 A); but there the 
word means the hideousness stamped on the soul by the vices of 
the living man. 
μωρολογία, “ stultiloquium,” only here in bibl. Grk. It is a rare 
word also in classical writers, but occurs in Arist. (/7zs¢, Az. 1. 11) 
and Plutarch (7707. 504 B). Plautus uses ‘‘ morologus,” ‘“‘ Amoris 
vitio non meo nunc tibi morologus fio” (/ers. i. 1. 50). 
εὐτραπελίαᾳ. Aristotle defines εὐτρ. as πεπαιδευμένη ὕβρις. οἵ 
ἐμμελῶς παΐζοντες εὐτράπελοι προσαγορεύονται. But he adds that, 
since most persons are pleased with excessive jesting, οἱ βωμολόχοι 
εὐτράπελοι προσαγορεύονται (Eth. Nic. iv. 14), 756 as In many other 
cases, the extreme usurps the name of the near. This would 
justify St. Paul’s usage, were there nothing else. But for the 
adjective compare also Pindar, Pyth. 1. 178, μὴ δολωθῇς εὐτρα- 
πέλοις κέρδεσσ᾽, and iv. 104, where Jason boasts that he has never 
spoken ἔπος εὐτράπελον. According to Dissen, the word was used 
“cum levitatis et assentationis, simulationis notatione”; but this 
does not seem to be the meaning here, where the context clearly 
points to licentious speech ; see ver. 5. Trench compares the 
history of the Latin “urbanitas” and the English “ facetious.” 
He notes that in the AZ7es Gloriosus of Plautus, the old man who 
describes himself as “ cavillator facetus ” says: “‘ Ephesi sum natus ; 
non enim in Apulis, non Animulae.” 
ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν. SoNABP. Rec. has τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα, with DG K L and 
most. 
ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εὐχαριστία. Clement of Alex. understands edy. 
here of ‘ gracious speech” ; and so Jerome (but with a “ forsitan ”) : 
“‘juxta quam grati sive gratiosi et salsi apud homines appellamur,” 
—an opinion followed by Calvin, Hammond, and many others, 
“‘sracious, pious, religious discourse in general,” Hammond ; 
who points to the Wa δῷ χέριν τοῖς ἀκ. in iv. 29, and “let your 
speech be always ἐν χάριτι," in Col. iv. 6. In Prov. xi. 16 we 
have γυνὴ εὐχαριστός, “a gracious, pious woman.” The adjective is 


150 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [V. 5 


sometimes so used in classical authors : εὐχαριστότατοι λόγοι, Xen. 
Cyr. 11. 2. τ. This would suit the context very well; but as it is 
not only against St. Paul’s use of the word elsewhere, but, more- 
over, there is no example of the substantive in this sense, it would 
be too bold to adopt it. We have to understand a suitable verb 
from ὀνομαζέσθω, both for this and the preceding substantives. 
The sense is not: “let not foolish speech be mentioned but 
thanksgiving,” but : “let there not be,” etc. Bengel understands 
ἀνήκει to εὐχαριστία ; and so Braune ; which with the reading ἃ οὐκ 
ἀνῆκεν 1S not unnatural, but more harsh. In these cases of 
brachylogy there is really no need to look for a verb, the sense 
is obvious to the reader. 

5. τοῦτο yap tote γινώσκοντες. ἴστε is the reading of SAB 
D* GP, It. Vulg. Goth. Sah. Boh. Arm., Chrys. 

ἔστε, that of D° ΚΙ, Theodoret, Theoph. Internal as well as 
external evidence favours the former. ἔστε yw. would be a feeble 
periphrasis for οἴδατε or γινώσκετε, since there is no hint here of an 
emphasis on the present tense. 

The combination of the two verbs is not to be explained by 
reference to the Hebrew idiom, which combines a finite verb with 
the infinitive absolute (imitated in Greek by the participle with 
the finite verb), since the verbs here are different. _Xenophon’s 
ὁρῶν καὶ ἀκούων οἶδα (Cyr. iv. I. 14) is nearer, but not exactly 
parallel, since there the participles define the kind of knowledge : 
“1 know by observation and hearsay.” ‘The meaning is clear: 
“ve know full well, of your own knowledge.” ἴστε is not im- 
perative, as in the Vulgate and Bengel, etc., which does not at all 
agree with the addition γινώσκοντες. Hofmann puts a stop after 
ἴστε, SO as to make τοῦτο refer to the preceding. 

On πᾶς οὐκ cf. iv. 29. 

ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης. 


There are three readings— 

& ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, ἐξ B 673, Jerome. 

ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, A DK LP, Syr-Harcl, Boh. Arm., Chrys, 

ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολατρεία, G, It. Vulg. Goth.; Syr-Pesh. (printed text) has 
* or,” which points to 8. 

The last is supposed by Meyer to have been an explanation of the second, 
which he thinks genuine, the first being produced from this by restoring 
εἰδωλολάτρης. But it is quite as easy to account for the third variety as 
arising from the first, because εἰδωλολάτρης was thought unsuitable to 6. If 
the second reading had been the original, it is not easy to see why it should 
have been changed ; but 8 would readily be changed to és for grammatical 
reasons. 


With the reading ὅς some commentators (Harless, Braune, 
etc.) refer the relative to all three antecedents ; but this is not so 
natural as the reference to πλεονέκτης, which also corresponds 
with Col. ili. 5, πλεονεξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία, although there 


Vv. 6] WARNING AGAINST IMPURITY 151 


also Harless regards ἥτις as by attraction for ἅτινα, as Eph. iil. 13. 
With the reading 6, the latter reference must, of course, be 
adopted. On the designation of 7A. as idolatry, see above on 
iv. 19. The passages from Rabbinical writers, quoted by Schottgen 
and Wetstein, do not throw much light on the matter. They 
tepresent all kinds of wickedness and vice as idolatry ; pride, anger, 
refusal to give alms. If πλεονεξία is simply “‘covetousness,” the 
question is, why should this, any more than fornication and im- 
purity, be singled out to be called idolatry? Meyer says that 
πορνεία and ἀκαθαρσία are also subtle idolatry (certainly not “ more 
subtle forms,” Ellicott), but that it was natural for St. Paul, whose 
own self-sacrificing spirit was so opposed to this self-seeking, to 
brand this especially as idolatry in order to make it κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν 
abominable. There is nothing in his language elsewhere to sup- 
port this idea. One of Chrysostom’s explanations shows how 
difficult he found it to answer the question. Wouldst thou learn, 
says he, how πλ. is idolatry, and worse than idolatry? Idolaters 
worship God’s creatures, but thou worshippest thy own creature, 
for God did not create πλεονεξία. 

If we give πλεονεξία and πλεονέκτης the wider sense advocated 
on iv. 19, there is no difficulty. 

οὐκ ἔχει κληρονομίαν. As κληρονομία does not necessarily imply 
actual possession, but the title to possession, it is not necessary to say 
that the present is used to express the certainty of future possession. 

ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ kal Θεοῦ. Many expositors (Bengel, 
Harless, etc.) argue from the absence of the article before Θεοῦ 
that the words mean “the kingdom of Him who is Christ and 
God.” But Θεός is one of the words that do not require an 
article ; comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, βασιλείαν Θεοῦ : also 7d. xv. 50 and 
Gal. v. 21. See also Gal. i. 1, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός : 
Rom. xv. 8, ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας Θεοῦ : xiil. 4, Θεοῦ διάκονος, etc. There 
is in the context no dogmatic assertion about Christ, and to in- 
troduce such a prediction in this incidental way would be out of 
place. Nor does the apostle’s language elsewhere lead us to sup- 
pose that he would thus absolutely designate Christ, God. Comp. 
iv. 6, “one Lord, one God.” ‘The absence of the article gives 
more unity to the conception; it is not “the kingdom of Christ, 
and also the kingdom of God,” but being the kingdom of Christ 
it is the kingdom of God. 

6. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς ἀπατάτω κενοῖς λόγοις. λόγοι κενοί, “sermones a 
veritate alieni.” Aeschines speaks of a decree written by Demos- 
thenes as κενώτερον τῶν λόγων ods εἴωθε λέγειν καὶ Tod βίου ὃν 
βεβίωκε (Cont. Cres. p. 288) ; and Plato says: τίς ἐν ξυνουσίᾳ τοιᾷδε 
μάτην κενοῖς λόγοις αὐτὸς αὑτὸν κοσμοῖ; (Laches. 169 Β). 

To what persons do these words refer? Grotius thinks, partly 
heathen philosophers, partly Jews, who thought that all Jews would 


152 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [ν. My, 8 


have part in the world to come. Meyer sees in them the un- 
believing heathen, which view he supports by reference to the 
following words ; and so Eadie. But the Christians, as such, were 
separate from the unbelieving heathen, and the Epistle gives no 
reason to suppose that they would need to be warned against 
immoral teaching proceeding from them. Rather, we must under- 
stand persons amongst themselves who made light of sins 
of impurity, as too many in Christian communities still do. 
As Bullinger (ap. Harless) says: ‘‘ Erant apud Ephesios homines 
corrupti, ut hodie apud nos plurimi sunt, qui haec salutaria Dei 
praecepta cachinno excipientes obstrepunt ; humanum esse quod 
faciant amatores, utile quod foeneratores, facetum quod jaculatores, 
et idcirco Deum non usque adeo graviter animadvertere in istius- 
modi lapsus.” The context perfectly harmonises with this: “ Be 
not ye Christians misled into such vices, for it is just these, etc., 
and by falling into them ye would be συμμέτοχοι with those who 
are in the darkness from which ye have been delivered.” 

διὰ ταῦτα γάρ, “for it is on account of these things”; not this 
teaching, but these sins, 

ἔρχεται ἣ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ὀργή is not to be limited to the ordinary 
judgments of this life, “quorum exempla sunt ante oculos” 
(Calv.) ; nor is there reason to limit it to the wrath of God in the 
day of judgment (Meyer). The wrath of God will be manifested 
then, but it exists now. 

ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας, See 11. 2. 

7. μὴ οὖν γίνεσθε συμμέτοχοι αὐτῶν. ‘Do not therefore become 
partakers with them.” αὐτῶν refers to the persons, not the sins 
(as Braune). This sharing is by some understood of sharing in 
their punishment, but by most expositors of sharing in their sins ; 
Stier combines both, and not unreasonably, since it has just been 
said that these sins bring punishment, and the sense naturally is : 
Have nothing in common with them, for ye surely do not desire 
to share the wrath with them. 

8. ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος. μέν is quite properly absent. To 
quote Fritzsche: ‘ Recte 101 non ponitur, ubi aut non sequitur 
membrum oppositum, aut scriptores oppositionem addere nondum 
constituerant, aut loquentes alterius membri oppositionem qua- 
cunque de causa lectoribus non indixerunt” (Rom. x. 19, vol. il. 
Pp. 423). 

ἧπε. The emphasis is on the time past; cf. “Troja fuit, 
fuimus Troes.” σκότος. Stronger than “were in darkness.” They 
were not only in darkness ; darkness was also in them. So νῦν δὲ 
φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ. The whole nature of light was to belong to them 
as formerly the whole nature of darkness ; they were not only in the 
light, but penetrated by it, so that they themselves became “‘ the 
light of the world,” Matt. v. 14. 


Vv. 9-11] WARNING AGAINST IMPURITY 153 


ἐν Κυρίῳ, “in fellowship with the Lord.” 

ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε. With τέκνα φωτός cf. viol ἀπειθείας, 
ver. 6 and ii. 5. Alford argues from the absence of the article 
before φωτός (in contrast with τοῦ φωτός, ver. g and Luke xvi. 8), 
that “it is light as ght that is spoken of.” But the absence of the 
article is in accordance with the settled rule stated by Apollonius, 
that (subject to certain qualifications) nouns in regimen must have 
the article prefixed to both or to neither (see Middleton, Oz the 
Greek Article, ii. τὶ ἢ 3 2. 6). 

9. 6 γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ φωτός. The walk to which I exhort you 
is that which becomes children of the light, for ete. 


The Rec. Text. has πνεύματος for φωτός, with D° K L, Syr-Pesh., Chrys. 
and most cursives. 

φωτός is the reading of NABD*GP 67, It. Vulg. Goth. Boh. Arm., 
Origen, Jerome. 

It might be thought possible that φωτός had come in from recollection of 
the same word just preceding, but the figure of ‘‘ light” governs the whole 
passage, and ἔργα ἄκαρπα σκότους, ver. 10, corresponds to καρπὸς φωτός 
here. Καρπὸς πνεύματος undoubtedly came in from the parallel, Gal. v. 22, 
where the contrast is with ἔργα σαρκός, ver. 19; cf. 17, 18. The variation is 
an important one for the estimate of the character of the authorities that 
support the two readings respectively. 


ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. “In all (7.6. every 
kind of) goodness and righteousness and truth,” the opposites of 
κακία, ἀδικία, ψεῦδος. ἀγαθωσύνη is not found in classical Greek, 
but is used by St. Paul in three other places, viz. Rom. xvi. 14 ; 
Galuvs22;2 Uhess.d) ΤΠ ihe 1586 of sit in: the, Sept. gives: us 
little help. In Eccles., where it occurs several times, it 15 used for 
“enjoyment.” In Neh. ix. 25, 35, it is used of the goodness of God. 
In Ps. lii. 3 (li. Sept.) it is good” in general as opposed to “evil” ; 
and so in xxxviil. (xxxvii.) 20. In St. Paul it would seem to mean 
“goodness” in the special sense of benevolence; and thus the 
threefold enumeration here would correspond to that in the 
Gospels: “justice, mercy, and truth,” and to Butler’s “justice, 
truth, and regard to common good” (comp. Rom. v. 7). 

As a metaphor the expression “fruit of the light” cannot be 
called ‘strictly correct,” as if it referred to the necessity of light for 
the production of fruit, etc. The words ‘children of lght” 
convey no intimation of such a figure. 

10. δοκιμάζοντες τί ἐστιν εὐάρεστον τῷ Κυρίῳ. Compare Rom. 
Xil. 2, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ 
εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον. 

Putting to the proof, partly by thought and partly by experience. 
Stier and some others take the words imperatively, supplying ἐστε, 
as Rom. ΧΙ]. 9-13 and wv. 19, 20; but here between two impera- 
tives this is less natural. 

11. καὶ μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοις ἔργοις ἀκάρποις τοῦ σκότους. ‘‘ Have 


154 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [v.12 


no fellowship with.” The thought joins on te ver. 7. The verb 
with the dative means (like the simple κοινωνεῖν) to have fellowship 
or partnership with. In the sense, “to have part in a thing,” it 
takes the genitive. ἀκάρποις, for vice has no καρπός. Thus 
Jerome: ‘Vitia in semet ipsa finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes 
frugibus pullulant et redundant.” 

11, 12. μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε, TA yap κρυφῆ γινόμενα ὕπ᾽ αὐτῶν 
αἰσχρόν ἐστι καὶ λέγειν. κρυφῆ γινόμενα cannot be merely syn- 
onymous with ἔργα σκότους, as Harless and Olshausen hold ; 
σκότος and κρυφῇ are distinct notions, and ἔργα σκότους might 
be open offences. Besides, this would make κρυφῇ quite super- 
fluous. καὶ λέγειν, “even to mention.” 

ἐλέγχετε iS usually taken to mean “reprove.” This seems to 
imply reproof by words; but then the reason assigned seems 
strange ; they are to be reproved, because even to speak of them 
is shameful. If the conjunction had been “although” and not 
“for,” it would be intelligible. Hence some expositors have 
actually supposed that yap here means “although,” which is, of 
course, impossible. Another view that has been taken is ‘rebuke 
them openly, for to speak of them otherwise is shameful”; but 
this puts too much into λέγειν. Bengel’s view is that the words 
assign, not the reason for éA., but the reason of the apostle’s 
speaking indefinitely of the vices, whilst he enumerates the virtues. 
This is forced, and against the emphatic position of κρυφῆ. Stier’s 
view is that the reproof is to be by the life, not by words: “Ye 
would yourselves be sinning if ye were to name the secret vices” ; 
hence the necessity for walking in the light, that so these deeds 
may be reproved. But St. Paul is not deterred by such scruples 
from speaking plainly of heathen vices when occasion required. 
Harless’ view, that the words are connected with μὴ ovyx., “Do 
not commit these sins, for they are too bad even to mention,” 
assumes that τὰ κρυφῆ γινόμενα simply = τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, which 
we have seen is untenable. 

Meyer and Eadie assign as the connexion, ‘ By all means 
reprove them ; and there is the more need of this, for it is a shame 
even to speak of their secret sins.” ‘This seems to leave the 
difficulty unsolved. Barry says: “In such reproof it should be 
remembered that it would be disgraceful ‘even to speak’ in 
detail of the actual ‘things done in secret.’” This again 
supposes that yap assigns a reason for what is not expressed, 
namely, for some qualification of ἐλέγχετε, not at all for ἐλέγχετε 
itself. 

There is, however, another meaning of éAéyyw very common, 
especially when the object is a thing, not a person, and more 
particularly in connexion with derivatives of κρύπτω, viz. to expose 
or bring to light. Artemidorus, in his interpretations of dreams, 


Υ. 13] WARNING AGAINST IMPURITY 155 


when speaking of those dreams which forebode the revealing of 
secrets, always speaks of τὰ κρυπτὰ ἐλέγχεσθαι, 6.9. 11. 36, ἥλιος 
ἀπὸ δύσεως ἐξανατέλλων τὰ κρυπτὰ ἐλέγχει τῶν λεληθέναι. δοκούντων. 
Polybius says: ἐλέγχεσθαί φασιν τὰς φύσεις ὑπὸ τῶν περιστάσεων 
(p. 1382). He opposes to it διασκοτεῖσθαι (p. 1383). And 
Phavorinus defines ἐλέγχω. τὸ κεκρυμμένον ἀτόπημά τινος εἰς φῶς ἄγω. 
Cf. Aristoph. Zccles. 483. 

So the substantive ὁ ἔλεγχος -- ρτοοῖ. The connexion of this 
signification with that of “convict” is obvious. The Atm. 27. 
has ἔλεγχός ἐστιν ὃ τὰ πράγματα capynvilov ... ὃ yap eX. εἰς φῶς 
ἄγει τὰ πράγματα. 

This appears to be the meaning of the verb in John iil. 20, οὐκ 
ἔρχεται πρὸς TO φῶς, ἃ ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Compare | in the 
following verse, ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα “φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα. 
Compare also 1 Cor. xiv. 22, ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων... τὰ κρυπτὰ 
τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται. The occurrence of κρυφῆ here in 
the immediate context suggests that this meaning was present to 
the apostle’s mind. Adopting it, we obtain as the interpretation : 
Have no participation with the works of darkness, nay, rather 
expose them, for the things they do secretly it is a shame even to 
mention ; but all these things when exposed by the light are made 
manifest in their true character. ‘Then follows the reason, not for 
13a, but for the whole exhortation, This ἐλέγχειν is not useless, 
for it leads to φανεροῦσθαι, and so turns σκότος into φῶς. This is 
Soden’s interpretation. A remarkable parallel is John 111. 20, just 
quoted. There also ἔργα are the object, ἔργα whose nature is 
σκότος (ver. 19); and it is the φῶς which effects ἐλέγχειν, ver. 20, 
and φανεροῦν, ver. 21. 

13. τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐλεγχόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτὸς φανεροῦται" πᾶν yap 
τὸ φανερούμενον φῶς ἐστι. The difficulty in tracing the connexion 
continues to be felt here. Meyer interprets: But everything 
(=those secret sins) when it is reproved is made manifest by the 
light ; that is, by the light of Christian truth which operates in your 
reproof, it is brought to the light of day in its true moral character ; 
I say, by the light, for—to prove that it can only be by the light— 
whatever is made manifest is light ; it has ceased to have the nature 
of darkness. Assuming, namely, “quod est in effectu (φῶς ἐστι) 
id debet esse in causa (ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός). This is adopted by 
Ellicott. But it is open to serious objection: first, ὑπὸ τοῦ φωτός 
is not emphatic; on the contrary, its position is as unemphatic as 
possible ; secondly, ἐλεγχόμενα is on this view not only super- 
fluous but disturbing ; thirdly, the assumption that what is in the 
effect must be in the cause, is much too recondite a principle to be 
silently assumed in such a discourse as this ; and, lastly, this treats 
φανερούμενον as if it were πεφανερωμένον. Meyer, in fact, endeavours 
to obtain, by the help of a hidden metaphysical assumption, the 


156 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [v. 14 


same sense which Eadie and others obtain by taking φανερούμενον 
as middle (= AV.). 

Ellicott adds, “whatever is illumined is light.” But davepow 
does not mean ‘to illumine,” but to make φανερός. It occurs 
nearly fifty times in the N.T. and never=qdwrifew. True, it is 
allied to φῶς, but not closely, for its nearest connexion is with the 
stem of φαίνω, viz. dav, which is already far from φῶς. Again, 
when it is said by Alford (in reply to Eadie’s objection that the 
transformation does not always take place) that, ‘“ objectively 
taken, it is universally true: everything shone upon 1s LicHr” 
(whether this tends to condemnation or not depending on 
whether the transformation takes place or not), this surely is just 
what is not true. A dark object shone upon does not become /x 
(the English word is ambiguous). He adds that the key text is 
John ili. 20, but in order to fit this in he interprets “ brought into 
light” as “made light.” 

Bengel, followed by Stier, takes φανερούμενον as middle, “ quod 
manifestari non refugit; confer mox, ἔγειραι καὶ ἀνάστα" [the 
correct reading is ἔγειρε] ; and on πᾶν, “ Abstractum pro concreto 
nam hic sermo jam est de homine ipso, coll. v. seq. propterea.” 

We seem almost driven (with Eadie, after Beza, Calvin, 
Grotius, etc.) to take φανερούμενον as middle, in this sense, ‘ what- 
ever makes manifest is light.” The examples, indeed, of φανεροῦσ- 
θαι as middle, adduced by Eadie, are not quite to the point, viz. 
such as ἐφανερώθη in Mark xvi. 12, where the medial sense is 
much more marked than in the present passage. leek thinks it 
necessary to suppose an active sense here, but he proposes to read 
φανεροῦν τό. Oltramare interprets: “ All the things done in secret, 
when reproved, are brought into open day by the light [which is 
salutary], for whatever is so brought out is light.” 

14. Διὸ λέγει. “‘ Wherefore it is said.” It is generally held that 
this formula introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. 
Here the difficulty arises that this is not a quotation from canon- 
ical Scripture. Jerome admits this, saying, ‘omnes editiones 
veterum scripturarum ipsaque Hebraeorum volumina eventilans 
nunquam hoc scriptum reperi.” He therefore suggests that it 15 
from an apocryphal writing ; not that the apostle accepted such a 
writing as authoritative, but that he quoted it as he has quoted 
Aratus, etc. He, at the same time, mentions others who supposed 
the words to be spoken by the apostle himself under inspiration. 
Many moderns, however, think that the original text is Isa. lx. 1, 
* Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lorp is 
risen upon thee,” the words being, it is said, quoted, not verbally, 
but in essence. It would be more correct to say that the resem- 
blance is verbal rather than in essence; for the differences are 
important. ‘The very word ὃ Χριστός is fatal to the idea of a 


v. 14] WARNING AGAINST IMPURITY 157 


quotation. Alford, indeed, says that it is a necessary inference 
from the form of the citation (viz. 6 Xp.) that St. Paul is citing 
the language of prophecy in the light of the fulfilment of prophecy, 
which obviously assumes the point in question. It is said, more- 
over, that no surprise can be felt at finding Christ substituted for 
the Lorp (Jehovah) of the O.T., and the true Israel for Jerusalem. 
True: if the question were of the application of words from the 
O.T., as in 1 Pet. 1]. 15, or of interpretation added to the quota- 
tion, as in Rom. xi. 6-8. Moreover, the words here are not 
addressed to the Church (6 καθεύδων), they seem rather addressed 
either to recent converts or to those who do not yet believe. And, 
further, there is nothing in Isaiah about awaking from sleep or 
arising from the dead (though Alford asserts the contrary) ; nor is 
the idea, “‘shall give thee light,” at all the same as Isaiah’s, “the 
glory of the Lord has risen upon thee.” 

Hence other commentators find it necessary to suppose a 
reference to other passages either separately or combined with 
this, viz. Isa: ix 2, xxvi, ro, lu. 17 ‘Such ‘conjectures, im fact, 
refute themselves ; for when the words of a prophet are so com- 
pletely changed, we can no longer speak of a quotation, and λέγει 
would be quite out of place. Nor can we overlook the fact that 
the point of the connexion seems to lie in the word ἐπιφαύσει. 

Others have adopted Jerome’s suggestion as to an apocryphal 
source, some even going so far as to suggest the actual name of 
the book, Epiphanius naming the Prophecy of Elijah; George 
Syncellus, a book of Jeremiah ; the margin of Codex G, the Book 
of Enoch. It is hardly sufficient to allege against this view that 
λέγει always introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. But 
ὃ Χριστός is inconsistent with the idea of an O.T. apocryphon, 
and apart from that the whole expression has a Christian 
stamp. 

Meyer endeavours to reconcile the assertion that λέγει intro- 
duces a citation from canonical Scripture with the fact that this is 
not such a citation, by the supposition that by a lapse of memory 
the apostle cites an apocryphon as if it were canonical. But was 
St. Paul’s knowledge of the Scriptures so imperfect that he 
did not know, for example, that the promised deliverer is never 
in the O.T. distinctly called 6 Χριστός ἢ 

Others conjecture that it may be a saying of Christ Himself 
that is quoted. The use of ὃ Χριστός in the third person is not 
inconsistent with this ; nor, again, the fact that St. Paul does not 
elsewhere quote the sayings of Christ. Why might he not do it 
once? But it is impossible to supply 6 Χριστός or Ἰησοῦς as a 
subject without something to suggest it. It is too forced to meet 
this by taking φῶς as the subject. 

The difficulties disappear when we recognise that λέγει need 


158 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [v.14 





not be taken to mean 6 Θεὸς A€yer,—an assertion which has been 
shown in iv. 8 to be untenable. It means “it says,” or “it 
is said,” and the quotation may probably be from some liturgical 
formula or hymn,—a supposition with which its rhythmical char- 
acter agrees very well. ‘That the words were suggested originally 
by Isa. lx. 1 may be admitted. Theodoret mentions this opinion : 
τινὲς δὲ TOV ἑρμηνευτῶν ἔφασαν πνευματικῆς χάριτος ἀξιωθέντας τινὰς 
ψαλμοὺς συγγράψαι, referring to 1 Cor. xiv. 26. He seems to 
have taken this from Severianus (Cvamer, vi. 197), who concludes : 
δῆλον οὖν ὅτι ἐν ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν πνευματικῶν ψαλμῶν ἤτοι προσευχῶν 
ἔκειτο τοῦτο ὃ ἐμνημόνευσεν (Compare also Origen in the Catena, 
zb.). Stier adopts a similar view, but endeavours to save the sup- 
posed limitation of the use of λέγει by saying that in the Church 
the Spirit speaks. As there are in the Church prophets and _ pro- 
phetic speakers and poets, so there are liturgical expressions and 
hymns which are holy words. Comparing vv. 18, 19, Col. iii. 16, 
it may be said that the apostle is here giving us an example of this 
self-admonition by new spiritual songs. 

The view that the words are from a liturgical source is adopted 
by Barry, Ewald, Braune, v. Soden, the last-mentioned suggesting 
(after some older writers) that they may have been used in the 
reception after baptism. Compare 1 Tim. il. 16, which is not 
improbably supposed to have a similar source. 

ἔγειρε is the reading of a decisive preponderance of authorities, ἃ A Β D 
GK LP, apparently all uncials, ἔγειραι being found only in cursives. In the 
other places where the word occurs (Matt. 1x2) δ ΝΜ ες τς Ὁ. ure mies 
v. 41; Luke v. 23; John v. δ), ἔγειρε is likewise supported by preponderant 
authority, a third variation ἐγείρον occurring in some places. Fritzsche on 
Mark ii. 9 has ably defended the propriety of ἔγειρε, which is not to be 
understood either as active for middle or as if σεαυτόν were understood, but 
as a ‘‘formula excitandi,” ‘ Up! 1? like dye, Emevye (Eurip. Orest. 789). So 
in Eurip. /ph. Azul. 624, ἔγειρ᾽ ἀδελφῆς ἐφ᾽ ὑμέναιον εὐτυχῶς ; and Aristoph. 
Ran. 340, ἔγειρε φλογέας λαμπάδας ev χερσὶ. . . τινάσσων. This use 
is limited to the single form ἔγειρε. ἔγειραι, says Fritzsche, would mean 
‘excita mihi aliquem.” 

ἀνάστα for ἀνάστηθι-: Αοἰς xii. 7. This short form is also found in 
Theocritus and Menander. Compare κατάβα, Mark xv. 30 (in some MSS. 
including A C), and ἀνάβα, Apoc. iv. I. 

kal ἐπιφαύσει σοι 6 Χριστός. ἐπιφαύσει from ἐπιφαύσκω, which 
is found several times in Job (Sept.) ; D* de and MSS. mentioned 
by Chrysostom and by Jerome read ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
Jerome (quoted by Tisch.) relates that he heard some one disput- 
ing in the church, in order to please the people with something 
new, saying that this was said with reference to Adam, who was 
buried on Calvary, and that when the Lord on the Cross hung 
above his grave, the prophecy was fulfilled, ‘ Rise Adam, who 
sleepest, and rise from the dead and Christ shall touch thee, 
ἐπιψαύσει,᾽" ze. that by the touch of Christ’s body and blood he 


.« 


V. 15, 16] GENERAL EXHORTATION 159 


should be brought to life. This story probably indicates how this 
reading arose. 

15-21. General exhortation to regulate their conduct with wis- 
dom, to make their market of the opportunity, and, avoiding riotous 
indulgence, to express their goy and thankfulness in spiritual songs. 

15. βλέπετε οὖν ἀκριβῶς πῶς περιπατεῖτε. 

This is the reading of §* B 17 and some other mss., Origen, and prob- 
ably Chrys. But πῶς ἀκριβῶς, 8° ADGKLP, with most mss., Vulg. 
Syr. (both) Arm., Theodoret, Jerome, etc. Chrysostom has ἀκριβῶς πῶς in 
text and comment, but in the latter πῶς ἀκριβῶς occurs presently after, also 
βλέπετε πώς περιπατεῖτε. As πῶς ἀκρ. is the common later reading, it is 
probable that its occurrence in the second place in the comm. is due to a 
copyist of Chrys. The variation in the original text may have arisen from an 
accidental omission of πῶς after -βώς (it is actually om. in Eth.), it being 
there inserted in the wrong place. In_Eadie’s comment. ed. 2, πῶς is 
similarly om. 


οὖν is resumptive, ‘‘to return to our exhortation.” Some, how- 
ever, regard this as an inference from what immediately precedes, 
viz. “since ye are enlightened by Christ ” (Ewald, Braune) ; but as 
the substance of the exhortation is clearly the same as in vv. 8-10, 
it is unnecessary to look on this as an inference from ver. 14. 
Harless follows Calvin, who says: “51 aliorum discutere tenebras 
fideles debent fulgore suo, quanto minus caecutire debent in pro- 
prio vitae instituto?” But this would seem to require an 
emphatic αὐτοί, 

On ἀκριβῶς compare Acts xxvi. 5, κατὰ τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην 
αἵρεσιν. AS περιπατεῖτε is a fact, the indicative is correctly used, 
and is exactly parallel to 1 Cor. ili. 11, ἕκαστος βλεπέτω πῶς 
ἐποικοδομε,. Most commentators expound the other reading, 
Fritzsche’s view of this has been generally adopted (Opuscula, p. 
209 n.), viz. that ἀκρ. περ. = “ tanquam ad regulam et amussim vitam 
dirigere,” the whole meaning πῶς τὸ ἀκριβῶς ἐργάζεσθε = “ videte 
quomodo circumspecte vivatis h. e. quomodo illud efficiatis, ut 
provide vivatis.” He exposes the fallacy of Winer’s contention 
(subsequently abandoned), that the words were a concise expression 
for βλέπετε πῶς περιπατεῖτε, δεῖ δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖν. He 
thinks the reading ἀκριβῶς πῶς was a correction on the part of 
those who, being familiar with ax. βλέπειν, εἰδέναι, etc., were 
offended with axp. περιπατεῖν, which is, he says, most suitable to 
this place. 

μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι, explaining πῶς, and so dependent, like it, on 
βλέπετε, hence the subjective negation (Winer, ὃ 55. 1). Then 
περιπατοῦντες need not be supplied. 

16. ἐξαγοραζόμενοι τὸν καιρόν. “Seizing the opportunity,” 
“making your market to the full from the opportunity of this life” 
(Ramsay, St. Paul as Traveller, etc., p. 149). The same expres- 
sion is used in Col. iv. 5 with special reference to conduct 


160 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS _ [V. 17, 18 


towards those outside the Church, ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς 
ἔξω. tov. é€ay. Lit. “ buying up for yourselves,” ἐξ being intens- 
ive, and corresponding to our “up.” καιρὸν ὑμεῖς ἀγοράζετε Occurs 
Dan. 11. 8, but in a different sense, viz. “wish to gain time.” More 
parallel as to sense is κερδαντέον τὸ παρόν, Antonin. vi. 26. 
ἐξαγοράζω, in the sense “buy up,” is found in Polyb. iii. 42. 2, 
ἐξηγόρασε Tap αὐτῶν τά τε μονόξυλα πλοῖα πάντα, κιτιλ. In Mart. 
folyc. 2 it has the wholly different sense: “ buy off,” διὰ μιᾶς ὥρας 
τὴν αἰώνιον κόλασιν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι. Chrysostom says the expres- 
sion is obscure, and he illustrates it by the case of robbers entering 
a rich man’s house to kill him, and when he gives much to purchase 
his life, we say that he ἐξηγόρασεν ἑαυτόν. So, he proceeds, “thou 
hast a great house, and true faith ; they come on thee to take all ; 
give whatever one asks, only save τὸ κεφάλαιον, that is τὴν πίστιν." 
This completely ignores τὸν καιρόν. Oecum. is more to the point: 
ὁ κ᾿ οὔκ ἐστιν ἡμῖν βέβαιος... ἀγόρασον οὖν αὐτὸν καὶ ποίησον 
ἴδιον. So Theodore Mops., and so Severianus in Caéena, adding 
that “the present opportunity δουλεύει τοῖς πονηροῖς, buy it up, 
therefore, so as to use it for piety.” But it is futile to press the 
idea of ‘‘purchasing,” or the force of ἐξ, so as to inquire from 
whom the opportunity is to be bought, as “from evil men” 
(Bengel, cf. Severianus, above), ‘the devil,” Calvin ; or what price 
is to be paid (ra πάντα, Chrys.). The price is the pains and effort 
required. 

ὅτι αἱ ἡμέραι πονηραί εἰσιν. So that it is the more necessary τὸν 
καιρὸν ἐξαγ. The moments for sowing on receptive soil in such 
evil days being few, seize them when they offer themselves. 
πονηραί is “morally evil,” not “distressful” (Beza, Hammond, 
etc.),—an idea foreign to the context, which contrasts the walk of 
the Christians with that of the heathen. 

17. διὰ τοῦτος Viz. because it is necessary to walk ἀκριβῶς. 
εἰ yap ἔσεσθε ἄφρονες ἀκριβῶς οὐ περιπατήσετε, Schol. ap. Cat. Not 
“because the days are evil,” which was only mentioned in support 
of ἐξαγ. τὸν καιρόν. 

μὴ γίνεσθε ἄφρονες. “Do not show yourselves senseless.” 
ἄφρων differs from ἄσοφος as referring rather to imprudence or folly 
in action. 

ἀλλὰ συνίετε. So N ABP 17, 672, etc. Rec. has συνιέντες, 
with D° EK L and most mss., It. Vulg. Syr-Pesh. ; while D* G 
have συνίοντες, which Meyer, with little reason, prefers as the less 
usual form. 

Somewhat stronger than γινώσκετε, “understand.” τί τὸ 
θέλημα, cf. ver. το. 

18. καὶ ph μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ. καί marks a transition from the 
general to the particular, as in εἴπατε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ Kal τῷ 
Πέτρῳ, Mark xvi. 7; πᾶσα ἡ ᾿Ιουδαία χώρα, καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται, 


Υ. 18] GENERAL EXHORTATION 161 


Mark i. 5. Fritzsche, in the latter place, remarks that καί in these 
instances is not = “‘imprimis,” but “‘scriptores rem singularem jam 
comprehensam communiori propterea insuper adjiciunt copulae 
adjumento, quod illam tanquam gravem impensius inculcatam 
volunt lectori.” 

It is out of the question to suppose any reference here to such 
abuses as are mentioned in 1 Cor. xi., which would have called for 
a more explicit censure. 

ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία. ἐν ᾧ, not οἴνῳ, but μεθύσκεσθαι οἴνῳ. 
ἀσωτία, “a word in which heathen ethics said much more than 
they intended or knew,” Trench. It is the character of the 
ἄσωτος ‘perditus,” thus defined by Aristotle: τοὺς ἀκρατεῖς καὶ εἰς 
ἀκολασίαν δαπανηροὺς ἀσώτους καλοῦμεν (Lth. Δία. iv. 1). In 
classical authors the adjective να 65. 1ἢ sense between “lost” and 
“prodigal,” the latter, “qui servare nequit,” being the more 
common. The substantive occurs also Tit. i. 6; 1 Pet. iv. 4; 
and the adverb Luke xv. 13, where see note. The Vulg. renders 
by ‘“‘luxuria, luxuriose,” words which in later Latin acquired the 
sense of profligate living. In medizval Latin “luxuria” = “ lascivi- 
ousness.” But the meaning in the N.T. is clearly “‘ dissoluteness.” 
The remark of Clem. Alex., τὸ ἄσωστον τῆς μέθης διὰ τῆς ἀσωτίας 
αἰνιξάμενος, was natural to a Christian writer accustomed to the 
technical use of σῴζειν, but no such idea seems implied in the use 
of the word in N.T. ἄσωτος is not derived from σώζω, but from 
σόω (Hom. 72. ix. 393, 424, (681). 

ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι. The antithesis is not directly 
between οἶνος and πνεῦμα, as the order of the words shows, but 
between the two states. Meyer remarks that the imperative 
passive is explained by the possibility of resistance ; but what other 
form could be employed? The signification is middle, for they 
must co-operate. The present tense cannot very well be expressed 
in the English rendering; ‘“‘be filled” is after all better than 
“become filled,” which would suggest that the filling had yet to 
begin. ἐν πνεύματι is usually understood of the Holy Spirit, ἐν 
being instrumental (Meyer), or both instrumental and expressing 
the content of the filling (Ellicott, Macpherson, a/.). But the use 
of ἐν with πληρόω to express the content with which a thing is filled 
would be quite unexampled. Phil. iv. 19 is not parallel (Ellicott 
admits it to be doubtful) ; still less Col. 11. ro, iv. 12 (where, more- 
over, the true reading is πεπληροφορημένοι). Plutarch’s ἐπεπλήρωτο 
ἐν μακαριότητι (flac. Phil. i. 7. 9) is not parallel; the words there 
(which are used of the Deity) mean “is complete in blessedness,” 
the alternative being “something is wanting to Him.” Meyer, 
indeed, says that as St. Paul uses genitive, dative, and accusative 
(Col. i. 9) with πληρόω, we cannot be surprised at his using év,—a 


singular argument. The genitive and dative are both classical ; the 
II 


162 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [v. 19 


accusative in Col. i. 9 is not accusative of material. But such 
variety in no way justifies the use of ἐν, the meaning of which is 
wholly unsuitable to the idea “filled with.” The nearest approach 
to this would be the instrumental sense (adopted by Meyer, a@Z., in 
i, 23). Where the material is only regarded as the means of 
making full, it may conceivably be spoken of as an instrument ; but 
this would require the agent to be expressed, and, besides, would 
be quite inappropriate to the Holy Spirit. For these reasons the 
rendering mentioned in the margin RV. (Braune’s also) is not to 
be hastily rejected. ‘‘ Be filled in spirit,” not in your carnal part, 
but in your spiritual. Alford attempts to combine both ideas, 
“let this be the region in, and the ingredient with which you are 
filled,” πνεῦμα being the Christian’s “own spirit dwelt in and 
informed by the Holy Spirit of God.” This seems an impossible 
combination, or rather confusion of two distinct ideas. _Macpher- 
son, in order to secure a contrast between the “stimulation of 
much wine and the stimulation of a large measure of the Spirit,” 
represents the apostle as saying, “‘conduct yourselves like those 
that are possessed, but see to it that the influence constraining 
you is that of the Holy Spirit.” It is hardly too much to say that 
this is a veductio ad absurdum of the supposed antithesis. There 
is nothing about excitement, nor does St. Paul anywhere sanction 
such conduct. 

19. λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς. On ἑαυτοῖς -- ἀλλήλοις, See lv. 32. Not 
“to yourselves,” AV.; ‘“‘meditantes vobiscum,” Michaelis. Com- 
pare Pliny’s description, “carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum 
invicem” (ἑαυτοῖς) (22. x. 97). But the reference cannot be 
specially to religious services, as the context shows; cf. Col. 
iil, 16, 

ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις kal wdais πνευματικαῖς = Col. iii. 16, except 
that the copulas are there wanting. The distinction between these 
words is not quite agreed upon. ψαλμός from ψάλλειν, primarily 
the plucking of the strings, is used by classical authors to mean 
the sound of the harp, and hence any strain of music. The Schol. 
on Aristoph. Aves, 218, says: ψαλμὸς κυρίως, ὃ τῆς κιθάρας ἦχος. 
Cyrilli Zex. and Basil on Ps, xxix. define it: λόγος μουσικός, ὅταν 
εὐρύθμως κατὰ τοὺς ἁρμονικοὺς λόγους πρὸς TO ὄργανον Kpoverat. And 
to the same effect Greg. Nyss. It occurs frequently in the ϑερί., 
not always of sacred music, e.g. 1 Sam. xvi. 18 of young David, 
εἰδότα τὸν ψαλμόν, 2.6. playing on the harp. 

ὕμνος is properly a song of praise of some god or hero. 
Arrian says: ὕμνοι μὲν ἐς τοὺς θεοὺς ποιοῦνται, ἔπαινοι δὲ ἐς ἀνθρώ- 
πους (Exped. Alex. iv. 11. 3). Augustine’s definition is well 
known: “Oportet ut, si sit hymnus, habeat haec tria, et laudem, 
et Dei, et canticum.” Hence ὑμνεῖν, to praise by a hymn. 

ὠδή, from ἀείδω, adv, seems to have originally meant any kind 


V. 20, 21] GENERAL EXHORTATION 163 


of song, but was specially used of lyric poetry. It is frequently 
used in Sept. (Ex. xv. 1; Deut. xxxi. 19-22; Judg. v. 1, 12, etc.). 


πνευματικαῖς is omitted by Bde, and bracketed by Lachmann. Not only 
is it attested by superabundant authority, but it seems essential as a further 
definition of the preceding word or words. Probably it is to be taken (as by 
Hofmann and Soden) with all three. ἐν is prefixed to ψαλμοῖς in B P 17 
67", Vulg., Jerome, and admitted to the margin by WH. After πρευμ. A 
adds ἐν χάριτι, clearly from Col. iii. 16. 


ἄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες TH καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ, 
Rec. has ἐν before τῇ «., with KL most mss., Syr-Harcl. Arm., while 
Lachm. reads ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις, with N©ADGP, It. Vulg. Boh. Syr-Pesh. 
Harcl. mg. But &* B have the singular without ἐν, and so Origen. In 


Col. iii. 16 all MSS. have ἐν, and most MSS. and Vss. the plural, D°K L 
reading the singular. 


Chrysostom interprets ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ as meaning “heartily or 
sincerely”; μετὰ συνέσεως προσέχοντες, 7.6. from the heart, not 
merely with the mouth. But this would be ἐκ τῇς καρδίας without 
ὑμῶν. 

20. εὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων. “Even,” says Chrysos- 
tom, “‘if it be disease or poverty. It is nothing great or wonderful 
if when prosperous you give thanks. What is sought is that when 
in affliction you do so. Nay, why speak of afflictions here? we 
must thank God for hell,” explaining that we who attend are much 
benefited by the fear of hell, which is placed as a bridle upon us: 
a profoundly selfish view, to which he was no doubt led only by 
the wish to give the fullest meaning to πάντων. Jerome is more 
sober: ‘‘Christianorum virtus est, etiam in his quae adversa 
putantur, referre gratias creatori.” But St. Paul is not specially 
referring to adversity ; on the contrary, the context shows that 
what he had particularly in his mind was occasion of rejoicing. 
Theodoret, however, takes πάντων as masc., that we must thank 
God for others who have received Divine blessing. (But there is 
nothing in the context to favour this. 

ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. When I speak of 
doing something in the name of another, this may mean either 
that I do it as representing him, that is, by his authority, or if the 
action is entirely my own, that I place its significance only in its 
reference to him. When an apostle commands in the name of 
Christ, this is in the former sense ; when I pray or give thanks in 
the same name, it is as His disciple and dependent on Him. 

τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρί, see 1. 3. There is no need to refer πατρί 
here to Christ ; the article rather leads to the sense, “‘ God, who is 
also the Father,” namely, of us. 

21. ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ. 

Χριστοῦ with δὲ Α ΒῚ, Ῥ, Vulg. Syr. (both) Boh. etc. θεοῦ of Rec. is in 
most cursives, and D has Χριστοῦ Ιησοῦ; (ἃ, Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. As φύβος Χριστοῦ 


164 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [V. 21 


is not found elsewhere, copyists naturally wrote φόβος Θεοῦ, which was 
familiar. 

“In the fear of Christ,” ze. with reference for Him as the 
guiding motive. 

“Submitting yourselves.” The connexion of this with the preced- 
ing seems rather loose. Ellicott says: “the first thre2 [clauses] 
name three duties, more or less specially in regard to God, the 
last a comprehensive moral duty in regard to man,” suggested by 
the thought of the humble and loving spirit which is the principle 
of εὐχαριστία. This does not meet the difficulty of the connexion. 
Alford refers back to μὴ μεθύσκ., “not blustering, but being sub- 
ject,” and Eadie is inclined to the same view; but this is forced, 
and requires us to interpolate something which is not indicated by 
anything in the text. Much the same may be said of Findlay’s 
view. He illustrates by reference to the confusion in the Church 
meetings in the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. xiv. 26-34), “ when he 
urges the Asian Christians to seek the full inspiration of the 
Spirit, and to give free utterance in song to the impulses of their 
new life, he adds this word of caution.” ‘This supplies too much, 
and besides, ὑποτασσόμενοι would be an unsuitable word to express 
such readiness to give way in the matter of prophesying as St. 
Paul directs in 1 Cor. Bloomfield, taking a similar view, supposes 
that what is insisted on is subordination to a leading authority. 
This preserves the sense of ὑποτ., but not of ἀλλήλοις. Blaikie 
refers back to ver. 15. 

In considering the connexion it must be borne in mind that 
ὑποτάσσεσθε in the next verse is in all probability not genuine, so 
that the verb has to be supplied from ὑποτασσόμενοι. There is 
therefore no break between vv. 21 and 22. Further, the whole 
following section, which is not a mere digression, depends on the 
thought expressed in this clause of which it is a development. To 
suppose a direct connexion with πληροῦσθε ἐν πν. does not yield a 
suitable sense. ‘The connexion with the preceding context is, in 
fact, only in form, that with what follows is in substance. From 
iv. 32 we have a series of precepts expressed in imperatives and 
participles depending on γίνεσθε, περιπατεῖτε ; δοκιμάζοντες, ἐξαγορα- 
Copevor, λαλοῦντες. Ver. 18 interrupts the series by a direct im- 
perative, as in vv. 3ff., 12ff. St. Paul elsewhere (Rom. xii. 9) 
carries On in participles a series of precepts begun in a different 
construction, ἀποστυγοῦντες τὸ πονηρόν, κιτιλ. It is therefore 
quite natural that here, where the participles λαλοῦντες, edxap., 
though not put for imperatives, yet from their connexion involve 
a command, he should make the transition to the new section 
easy by continuing to use the participle. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 18, 
ii. 1. Meyer admits that it is no objection to this that in what 
follows we have only the ὑπόταξις of the wives, while the ὑπακοή of 


V. 22] SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS 165 


the children and servants in ch. vi. cannot be connected with 
ὕποτασσ. ; for in classical writers also, after the prefixing of such 
absolute nominatives which refer collectively to the whole, often 
the discourse passes over to one part only. But he thinks that 
in that case at γυναῖκες would necessarily have a special verb cor- 
relative with tror. It is not easy to see the force of this. 

22-83. Special injunctions to husbands and wives. Wives to be 

subject to their husbands, husbands to love their wives. This rela- 
tionship ts tllustrated by that of Christ and the Church. As Christ 
ts the Head of the Church, which ts subject to Christ, so the husband 
ts the head of the wife, who ts to be subject to the husband ; and 
Chris?s love for the Church ts to be the pattern of the man’s love 
Jor his wife. The analogy, indeed, ts not perfect, for Christ ts not 
only the Head of the Church which ts His body, but ts also the 
Saviour of tt ; but this does not affect the purpose of the comparison 
here. 

22. at γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὧς τῷ Κυρίῳ. So without a 
verb B, Clement (when citing vv. 21-25), Jerome’s Greek MSS. His 
note is, “‘ Hoc quod in Latinis exemplaribus additum est: swdditae 
sint, in Graecis Codd. non habetur.” ὑποτασσέσθωσαν is added 
after ἀνδράσιν in SAP 17 αἰ. Vulg. Goth. Arm. Boh. etc., and 
Clement (when citing ver. 22 only). ὑποτάσσεσθε in K L most 
mss., Syr. (both), Chrys. D G also have ὑποτάσσεσθε, but after 
γυναῖκες. Lachmann adopted ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, but later critical 
editors read without the verb, The testimony of Jerome, who 
knew of no Greek MSS. with the verb, is very important. No 
reason can be imagined for its omission if it had been in the text 
originally, whereas the reason for its insertion is obvious, and was 
stated even by Erasmus: “adjectum, ut apparet, quo et sensus 
sit lucidior, et capitulum hoc separatim legi queat, si res ita 
postulet.”. The latter reason is particularly to be noted. The 
diversity in the MSS. which have the verb is also of weight. The 
shorter reading agrees well with the succinct style of St. Paul in 
his practical admonitions. 

ἰδίοις is more than a mere possessive, yet does not imply an 
antithesis to “other men”; it seems rather to emphasise the rela- 
tionship, as in the passage quoted from Stobaeus by Harless (/Vorzi. 
p. 22): Θεανῶ ἡ Πυθαγορικὴ φιλόσοφος ἐρωτηθεῖσα τί πρῶτον εἴη 
γυναικι τὸ τῷ ἰδίῳ, ἔφη, ἀρέσκειν ἀνδρί, Compare also Acta Thomae, 
p. 24 (ed. Thilo): οὕτως εἶ ὡς πολὺν χρόνον συμβιώσασα τῷ ἰδίῳ ἀνδρί. 
That the word was not required to prevent misconception of 
ἀνδράσι is shown by its absence in the parallel, Col. iii. 18. 

ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, not “as to their lord,” which would have been 
expressed in the plural, but “as to the Lord Christ,” “as” not 
meaning in the same manner as, but expressing the view they are 
to take of their submission ; compare vi. 6, 7.‘ Suéjectio quae ab 


156 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS _ [V. 28, 54 


uxore praestatur viro simul praestatur ipsi Domino, Christo,” 
Bengel. So Chrysostom: ὅταν ὑπείκῃς τῷ ἀνδρί, ὡς TO Κυρίῳ 
δουλεύουσα ἡγοῦ πείθεσθαι. 

23. ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστι κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικός. Assigns the reason of 
ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ. The article before ἀνήρ in Rec. has no uncial 
authority in its favour. ‘A husband is head of his wife.” 

ὡς καί, “as also.” Compare 1 Cor. xi. 3, παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἢ 
κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστι, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὃ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεός. 

ὃ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος. 

Rec. has καὶ αὐτός ἐστι o., with δὲ ΤΡ. ΚΤ, Ρ most mss., Syr. (both) 
Arm. But the shorter reading is that of ἢ ABD*G, Vulg. The added 
words are an obvious gloss. Boh. has ἐστι without καί, and Aeth. καί with- 
out ἐστι. 

The apostle having compared the headship of the husband to 
that of Christ, could not fail to think how imperfect the analogy 
was; he therefore emphatically calls attention to the point of 
difference ; as if he would say: “‘ A man is the head of his wife, even 
as Christ also is head of the Church, although there is a vast 
difference, since He is Himself the Saviour of the body, of which 
He is the head ; but notwithstanding this difference,” etc. Calvin 
already proposed this view: “‘ Habet quidem id peculiare Christus, 
quod est servator ecclesiae ; nihilominus sciant mulieres, sibi maritos 
praeesse, Christi exemplo, utcunque pari gratia non polleant.” So 
Bengel concisely: “ Vir autem non est servator uxoris; in 60 
Christus excellit; hinc sed sequitur.” Chrys. Theoph. and 
Oecum., however, interpret this clause as equally applicable to 
the husband. καὶ yap ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος σωτηρία ἐστίν, Chrys. 
And more fully Theoph.: ὥσπερ καὶ ὃ Χριστὸς τῆς ἐκκλησίας dv 
κεφαλή, προνοεῖται αὐτῆς καὶ σώζει" οὕτω τοίνυν καὶ ὃ ἀνήρ, σωτὴρ τοῦ 
σώματος αὐτοῦ, τουτέστι τῆς γυναικός. πῶς οὖν οὐκ ὀφείλει ὑποτάσ- 
σεσθαι τῇ κεφαλῇ τὸ σῶμα, τῇ προνοουμένῃ καὶ σωζούσῃς. So 
Hammond and many others. But αὐτός cannot refer to any 
subject but that which immediately precedes, viz. 6 Χριστός. 
Moreover, to use σῶμα without some qualification for the wife 
would be unintelligible; nor is σωτήρ ever used in the N.T. 
except of Christ or God. 

24, ἀλλὰ ds ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται TH Χριστῷ, οὕτως καὶ αἱ 
γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν. There is much difference of opinion as to 
the force to be assigned to ἀλλά. Olshausen takes it as intro- 
ducing the proof drawn from what precedes ; and similarly De 
Wette, “ But (aber) if the man is your head,” a sense which ἀλλά 
(which is not=8é) never has. Eadie gives the word “an anti- 
thetic reference,” such as ἀλλά sometimes has after an implied 
negative. He interprets: “do not disallow the marital headship, 
for it is a divine institution ——daAAa,—but,” etc. He refers for 


V. 25, 26] SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS 167 


this use of ἀλλά to Luke vii. 7 ; John vii. 49; Rom. iii. 31, viii. 37; 
1 Cor. vi. 8,ix. 12. The fact that in most of these cases we might 
not incorrectly render “ Nay,” or ‘‘ Nay, on the contrary,” shows 
how unlike the present passage they are. Nor are 2 Cor. viil. 7, 
xiii. 4; 1 Tim. L 15, 16, or the other passages which he cites, at 
all parallel ; and the negative to which he supposes ἀλλά to refer 
(‘do not disallow,” etc.) is not even hinted at in the text. His 
objection to the interpretation here adopted is that it sounds like 
atruism. MHarless and others take ἀλλά to be simply resumptive ; 
but the main thought has not been interrupted, and there is no 
reason for rejecting its adversative force. Hofmann, like Eadie, 
reads into the text an objection which ἀλλά repels, “but even 
where the husband is not this (namely, a σωτὴρ τοῦ o., making 
happy his wife, as Christ the Church), yet,” etc. The view here 
preferred is adopted by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Braune, Moule, etc. 

ἐν παντί. It is presupposed that the authority of the husband 
is in accordance with their relation as corresponding to that of 
Christ to the Church. “ds εὐσεβέσι νομοθετῶν προστέθεικε τὸ ἐν 
may,” ‘Theodoret. 


ὥσπερ of the Rec. is the reading of D°KL and most mss. ; but ὡς, 
SA D* GP 17 677 etc. (B omits.) 

ἰδίοις is prefixed to ἀνδράσιν by AD°K LP, Vss., but om. by NBD*G 
17 67". It has clearly been introduced from ver. 22. 


25. ot ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας. 
PES, AY Y 


Rec. adds ἑαυτῶν, with DKL, Syr. εἰς. ; but SAB 17, Clem. (when 
giving the whole passage) omit. G adds ὑμῶν. 


καθὼς καὶ 6 Χριστός, κιτιλ, “Si omnia rhetorum argumenta in 
unum conjicias, non tam persuaseris conjugibus dilectionem 
mutuam quam hic Paulus” (Bugenhagen). Meyer also well 
observes: “It is impossible to conceive a more lofty, more ideal 
regulation of married life, and yet flowing immediately from the 
living depth of the Christian consciousness, and, therefore, capable 
of practicable application to all concrete relations.” Chrysostom’s 
comment is very fine: ‘‘ Hast thou seen the measure of obedience? 
hear also the measure of love. Wouldst thou that thy wife should 
obey thee as the Church doth Christ? have care thyself for her, as 
Christ for the Church; and if it should be needful that thou 
shouldest give thy life for her, or be cut to pieces a thousand times, 
or endure anything whatever, refuse it not; yea, if thou hast 
suffered this thou hast not done what Christ did, for thou doest 
this for one to whom thou wert already united, but He for her who 
rejected Him and hated Him . . . He brought her to His feet by 
His great care, not by threats nor fear nor any such thing; so do 
thou conduct thyself towards thy wife.” 

26. iva αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι. 


168 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [V. 26 


The immediate purpose of ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν, ver. 25. ἁγιάσῃ is 
clearly not to be limited to “consecration” ; it includes the actual 
sanctification or infusion of holiness. It is the positive side, 
καθαρίσας expressing the negative, the purification from her former 
sins. But as the remoter object is ἵνα παραστήσῃ, the ceremonial 
idea of ἁγιάζειν appears to be the prominent one here. Logically, 
καθαρίζειν precedes ἁγιάζειν, chronologically they are coincident ; 
cf. τ Cor. vi. 11, ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητες. The tense 
of καθαρίσας by no means requires the translation “after He had 
purified ” (cf. 1. 9), which would probably have been expressed by 
a passive participle agreeing with αὐτήν, indeed καθαρίζων would 
have been quite inappropriate. 

τῷ λουτρῷ τ. ὕ. “ By the bath of water,” distinctly referring to 
baptism, and probably with an allusion in λουτρῷ to the usual bath 
of the bride before the marriage; the figure in the immediate 
context being that of marriage. 

ev ῥήματι. The first question is as to the connexion. By 
Augustine the phrase is supposed to qualify τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ v6., 
“‘accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.” 

But as the combination is strange, and neither τὸ λουτρόν nor 
τὸ ὕδωρ can form with ἐν ῥήματι a single notion (like ἡ πίστις ἐν 
Xp.), this would require the article to be repeated. ‘The interpre- 
tation, ‘the bath resting on a command” (Storr, Peile, Klopper), 
would require ἐν ῥ. Χριστοῦ. Meyer, following Jerome, connects 
the words with ἁγιάσῃ, “having purified with the bath of water, 
may sanctify her by the word.” ‘The order of the words is strongly 
against this, and, besides, we should expect some addition to 
καθαρ., which should suggest the spiritual signification of ‘ purify- 
ing with water.” 

It is therefore best connected with xafapioas. But as to the 
meaning? Alford, Eadie, Ellicott, Meyer take ῥῆμα to mean the. 
gospel or preached word taught preliminary to baptism. ῥῆμα is, 
no doubt, used in this sense (not in Acts x. 37 but) Rom. x. 17, 
ῥῆμα Χριστοῦ ; but there it is defined by Χριστοῦ, as in ver. ὃ by 
τῆς πίστεως ; indeed, ῥῆμα is there used, not because of any special 
appropriateness, but for the sake of the quotation. Elsewhere we 
have ῥῆμα Θεοῦ, Eph. vi. 17. It is far, indeed, from being correct 
to say that “the gospel” is “the usual meaning of the Greek 
term,” as Eadie states, referring, in addition to the passages 
mentioned above, to Heb. vi. 5 (where the words are Θεοῦ ῥῆμα): 
Acts x. 44, τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα: xi. 14, λαλήσει ῥήματα πρός oe. In 
these last two places it is obvious that ῥήματα means simply 
“words” or “sayings,” as in Acts xxvi. 25, where St. Paul says of 
his speech before Festus, ἀληθείας καὶ σωφροσύνης ῥήματα ἀποφθέγ- 
γομαι. See also Acts i. 14, ἐνωτίσασθε τὰ ῥήματά pov. Needless 
to say that ῥῆμα is used of single sayings very frequently. ‘There 


V. 27] SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS 169 


may be even πονηρὸν ῥῆμα or ἀργὸν ῥῆμα (not to mention cases where 
ῥῆμα is used for “a thing mentioned”: see on Luke i. 65). That 
the word is most frequently used, not to signify a Divine or sacred 
saying, but where the connexion implies such a saying, is simply a 
result of the fact that there was little occasion (in the Epp. none) 
to refer to other ῥήματα. There is no example of ῥῆμα by itself 
meaning “the gospel” or anything like this. Had it the article 
here, indeed, there would be good reason for maintaining this 
interpretation. 

The Greek commentators understand ῥῆμα of the formula of 
baptism. otw; says Chrysostom, ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Harpos καὶ τοῦ 
Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Ivevparos. It is true, as Estius remarks, that 
if this were the sense we should expect καὶ ῥήματος ; and Harless 
adds that these definite words could hardly be referred to except 
with the article, τῷ ῥήματι. But although “of water and ῥῆμα" 
might, perhaps, have been expected, ἐν is quite admissible ; com- 
pare ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ, vi. 2. The objections from the absence of the 
article, and from the fact that ῥῆμα has not elsewhere this meaning, 
fall to the ground when we consider that it is not alleged or sup- 
posed that ῥῆμα of itself means the formula of baptism; it retains 
its indefinite meaning, and it is only the connexion with the refer- 
ence to baptism in the preceding words that defines what ῥῆμα is 
intended. So Soden. Moule renders, “‘attended by, or condi- 
tioned by, an utterance,” which would agree well with this inter- 
pretation. He explains it as “the revelation of salvation embodied 
in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.” Macpher- 
son denies the reference to baptism, and thinks it more natural to 
speak of the cleansing as effected by the bathing (“‘ washing,” AV.) 
rather than in the bath, especially as “ οἵ water” is added. ‘The 
reference is most probably to the bath of the bride before mar- 
riage.” Yes, such a reference there is; but what is it which the 
reader is expected to compare with the bridal bath? As there is 
no particle of comparison, the words imply that there is a λοῦτρον 
ὕδατος, which is compared to the bath. And surely baptism could 
not fail to be suggested by these words to the original readers. 
As to λουτρόν, besides the meaning “ water for bathing,” it has the 
two senses of the English “bath,” viz. the place for bathing and 
the action ; but it does not mean “ washing.” 

27. ἵνα παραστήσῃ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ, κιτιλ. The remoter object of 
παρέδωκεν depending on ἁγιάσῃ, etc. The verb is used, as in 
2 Cor. xi. 2, of the presentation of the bride to the bridegroom, 
παρθένον ἁγνὴν παραστῆσαι τῷ Xpiotd. The interpretation, “‘ present 
as an offering” (Harless), is opposed to the context as well as 
inconsistent with ἑαυτῷς αὐτός is the correct reading, and 
emphasises the fact that it is Christ who, as He gave Himself to 
sanctify the Church, also presents her to Himself. This presenta- 


170 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [V. 28 


tion is not complete in this life, yet Bengel correctly says: ‘id 
valet suo modo jam de hac vita.” 
αὐτὸς is the reading of δὲ ABD* GL, Vulg. Syr-Harcl. ete. The Rec. 
has αὐτήν, with 1). K most mss., Syr-Pesh., Chrys. The latter is the read- 
ing which would most readily occur to the copyist; no copyist would be 
likely to depart from it if he had it before him, but αὐτός has a peculiar 
emphasis. 


ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. The tertiary predicate ἔνδοξον is placed 
with emphasis before its substantive. Not “a glorious Church,” 
but “the Church, glorious,” ‘that He might present the Church 
to Himself, glorious.” 

μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον. σπίλος, which also occurs 2 Pet. 11. 13, is a 
word of later Greek (Plutarch, etc.) for κηλίς ; ἄσπιλος occurs four 
times in N.T. 

ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 4. Changed structure, as if ἵνα μὴ ἔχῃ had preceded ; 
compare ver. 33. 

28. οὕτως is connected by Estius and Alford with ὡς following : 
“So... as.” This is not forbidden by grammatical considera- 
tions ; for in spite of Hermann’s rule, that the force of οὕτως is “ut 
eo confirmentur /vaecedentia,” it is used with reference to what 
follows, introduced by ὡς or ὥσπερ, both in classical writers and in 
N.T. Compare τοὺς οὕτως ἐπισταμένους εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐδεὶς ἂν ἄλλος 
δύναιτο (Isocr. ap. Rost and Palm. ἔστιν γὰρ οὕτως ὥσπερ οὗτος 
ἐννέπει, Soph. Zrach. 475, is not a good instance, for οὕτως may 
ἜΝ well be referred to what precedes), And inv Neier: 

1. 15, οὕτω δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός : cf. iv. 1. But in such cases οὕτως has 
some emphasis on it, and apart ὩΣ that it yields a better sense 
here to take οὕτως as referring to the preceding statement of 
Christ’s love for the Church. ‘Even so ought husbands. . .” 
If καί is read betore οἱ ἄνδρες, as Treg. WH. and RV., the latter 
view is alone possible. 

The position of ὀφείλουσιν varies in the MSS. δὰ" ΚΙ, 17 and most have 
it before οἱ ἄνδρες, AD ἃ P after. The latter group add καί before οἱ ἄνδρες, 
and of the former group Β 17. As the position of the verb would hardly be 
a reason for inserting καί, it may be presumed to be genuine, 

ὡς Ta ἑαυτῶν σώματα. The sense just ascertained for οὕτως 
determines this to mean “as being their own bodies”; and this 
agrees perfectly with what follows: ‘he that loveth his own wife 
loveth himself.” Moreover, although we speak of a man’s love 
for himself, we do not speak of him as loving his body or having 
an “affection ” for it (Alford) ; and to compare a man’s love for his 
wife to his love (?) for his “body,” would be to suggest a degrad- 
ing view of the wife, as, indeed, Grotius does, saying: “sicut 
corpus instrumentum animi, ita uxor instrumentum viri ad res 
domesticos, ad quaerendos liberos.” Plutarch comes nearer to the 
apostle’s view: κρατεῖν det τὸν ἄνδρα τῆς γυναικός, οὐχ ὡς δεσπότην 


V. 29, 80] SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS 171 
κτήματος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ψυχὴν σώματος, συμπαθοῦντα καὶ συμπεφυκότα τῇ 
εὐνοίᾳ. ὥσπερ οὖν σώματός ἐστι κήδεσθαι μὴ δουλεύοντα ταῖς ἧδοι αἷς 
αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις: οἵτω γυναικὸς ἄρχειν εὐφραίνοντα καὶ 
χαριζόμενον (( 717. Praec. p. 422, quoted by Harless). The mean- 
ing is, Even as Christ loved the Church as that which is His 
body, so also should husbands regard their wives as their own 
bodies, and love them as Christ did the Church. 

6 ἀγαπῶν thy ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ. This is neither 
identical with the preceding nor an inference from it, but rather 
an explanation of ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα. If the latter words meant, 
“as they do their own bodies,” they would fall immeasurab'y 
short of this. It is, however, going beyond the bounds of 
psychological truth to say that a man’s love for his wife is but 
“complying with the universal law of nature by which we all love 
ourselves,” or that it “is in fact self-love,” whether ‘a hallowed 
phasis” of it or not. If it were so, there would be no need to 
enforce it by precept. Although the husband’s love for his wife 
may be compared to what is called his love for himself, inasmuch 
as it leads him to regard her welfare as his own, and to feel all 
that concerns her as if 1 concerned himself, the two mental facts 
are entirely different in their essence. There is no emotion in 
selflove ; it is the product of reason, not of feeling; and it is a 
“law” of man’s nature, not in the sense of obligation (although there 
is a certain obligation belonging to it), but in the sense that it 
necessarily belongs to a rational nature. The basis of conjugal 
love is wholly different, and is to be found, not in the rational 
part of man’s nature, but in the affections. The love is reinforced 
by reflection, and made firm by the sense of duty; but it can 
never become a merely rational regard for another’s happiness, as 
“self-love” is for one’s own. 

To refer to the stirring remarks of Chrysostom above cited, 
when a man gives his life for his wife, is that an exercise of 
*self-love” ? Surely no more than when a mother gives her life 
for her child. ‘There is none of this false philosophy in the 
language of St. Paul. 

29. τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα. The word is, no doubt, chosen with 
reference to the σὰρξ pia, quoted ver. 31. It is not perhaps 
correct, however, to say that it is so chosen instead of σῶμα, for 
it is hardly probable that the apostle would have used σῶμα in 
this connexion in any case. Rather, the whole sentence is sug- 
gested by the thought of σὰρξ μία. 

30. ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ. Rec. adds ἐκ τῆς 
σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ. 

For the insertion are 8° 610 (K has τοῦ σώματος for τῶν 
ὀστέων) nearly all cursive mss., It. Vulg. Syr. (both) Arm., Iren. 
Jerome, etc. 


172 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [V. 30 


For the omission 8* A B 17 672, Boh. Eth., Method. Euthal. 
Ambrst. and apparently Origen. 


It will be seen that the MSS. which omit decidedly outweigh those that 
insert. Ellicott speaks of the testimony of δὲ as ‘‘ divided,” which seems 
a singular way of neutralising the evidence of the earlier scribe by that of a 
seventh-century corrector. 

It isan obvious suggestion that the words might have been omitted by 
homoeoteleuton. Reiche, who accepted the words (writing before the dis- 
covery of δὲ), rightly observes that this can hardly be admitted in the case of 
so many witnesses. He prefers to suppose that they were omitted in con- 
sequence of offence being taken at the apparently material conception 
presented ; and some other critics have adopted the same view. The 
objection must have been very strong which would lead to such a deliberate 
omission. But there is no reason to suppose that the words would have 
given offence, especially considering such words as ‘‘a spirit hath not flesh 
and bones as ye see Me have,” not to mention ‘‘ eating My flesh and drinking 
My blood.” Nor do the ancient commentators indicate that any such 
difficulty was felt. Irenaeus, after quoting the words, adds: ‘‘non de 
spirituali aliquo et invisibili homine dicens haec ; spiritus enim neque ossa 
neque carnes habet,” etc. Indeed, an ancient reader would be much more 
likely to regard the words as a natural expansion of μέλη τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ. 
On the other hand, nothing was more likely than that the words should be 
added from recollection of the passage in Genesis, quoted in ver. 31. It is 
objected to this, that the words are not quoted with exactness, ‘‘ bone” 
preceding ‘‘flesh” in Gen. This is to assume an exactness of memory 
which is at least questionable. Once added, the ordinary copyist would, of 
course, prefer the longer text. 

As to the internal evidence, on careful consideration it will be found 
strongly in favour of the shorter text. When Christ is called the Head or 
Foundation, and the Church the Body or House, the language is that of 
analogy, z.e. it suggests, not resemblance of the objects, but of relations ; 
Christ in Himself does not resemble a Head or a Foundation-stone, but His 
relation to the Church resembles the relation of the head to the body and of 
the foundation-stone to the building. But what relation is suggested by the 
bones of Christ? Or if σώματος be understood or the figurative or mystical 
body, what conceivable meaning can be attached to the bones thereof? 
This fundamental difficulty is not faced by any commentator. While trying 
to attach some meaning to the clause, they do not attempt to show any 
appropriateness in the language. The utmost that could be said is that the 
words express an intimate connexion; but unless this was a proverbial form of 
expression, of which there is no evidence, this, besides losing the force of ἐκ, 
would leave the difficulty unsolved. Moreover, the clause is so far from 
carrying out the μέλη τοῦ o., that it introduces an entirely different figure. 
This is disguised in the AV. 

Had the words been ‘‘of His flesh and of His blood,” we might have 
understood them as alluding to the Eucharist ; and it is worth noting that 
several expositors have supposed that there is such an allusion; but the 
mention of ‘‘flesh and bones” instead of ‘‘flesh and blood” is fatal to 
this. 


The reader may desire to know how the omitted clause has 
been interpreted. Chrysostom, in the first instance, explains it 
of the incarnation, by which, however, Christ might rather be said 
to be “from our flesh.” It is no answer to this to say, with Estius, 
“in hac natura ipse caput est,” which is to change the figure. 


Υ. 31] SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS 173 


Besides, it is true of all men, not only of Christians, that in this 
sense they are of the same flesh as Christ ; but this again is not 
the meaning of ἐκ. Alford says: “As the woman owed her 
natural being to the man, her source and head, so we owe our 
spiritual being to Christ, our Source and Head”; and similarly 
Ellicott, Meyer, etc. Surely a strange way of saying that our 
spiritual being 15 derived from Christ, to say that we are from 
His bones! Others, as above mentioned, interpret of communion 
in the Eucharist (so in part Theodoret and Theophylact, also 
Harless and Olshausen). 

Not without reason did Riickert come to the conclusion that it 
was doubtful whether St. Paul had any definite meaning in the 
words at all. 

81. ἀντὶ τούτου = ἕνεκεν τούτου. Compare the use of ἀντί in 
av? ὧν. Then the sense will be: because a man is to love his 
wife as Christ the Church. V. Soden, however, takes ἀντὶ τούτου 
to mean “instead of this,” viz. instead of hating (ver. 29), observ- 
ing that the conclusion of this verse returns to the main idea there, 
7.6. 9 ἑαυτοῦ σαρξ. See on Lk. xii. 3. 

καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος, «.t.A. A quotation from Gen. ii. 24, 
which might have been introduced by “‘as it is written”; but with 
words so familiar this was needless. 

Most commentators interpret this verse of Christ, either 
primarily or secondarily. So Jerome: “primus vates Adam hoc 
de Christo et ecclesia prophetavit ; quod reliquerit Dominus noster 
atque Salvator patrem suum Deum et matrem suam coelestem 
Jerusalem.” So many moderns, including Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, 
the last mentioned, however, referring the words to the Second 
Coming, the tense being future. Ellicott thinks this is pressing 
the tense unnecessarily, whereas it may have the ethical force of 
the future, for which he refers to Winer, § 40. 6, whose examples 
are wholly irrelevant to Ellicott’s purpose. If the passage is inter- 
preted of Christ it refers to a definite fact, and the future must have 
its future sense. Understood of Christ, the expressions ἄνθρωπος 
for Christ, and “leave his father and mother,” for “leave His seat 
in heaven,” are so strange and so unlike anything else in St. Paul, 
that without an express intimation by the writer it is highly un- 
reasonable so to interpret them. Can we imagine St. Paul writing, 
‘Christ will leave His father and His mother and will cleave to 
His wife, the Church”? We might not be surprised at such an 
expression in a mystical writer of the Middle Ages, but we should 
certainly not recognise it as Pauline. It is, if possible, less likely 
that he should say the same thing, using ἄνθρωπος instead of 
Χριστός, and expect his readers to understand him. If the future 
is given its proper meaning, the expression “leaving His seat at the 
right hand of God” is inappropriate. 


174 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [V. 32 


On the other hand, the whole passage treats of the duty of 
husbands, the reference to Christ and the Church being introduced 
only incidentally for the purpose of enforcing the practical lesson. 
It was, indeed, almost inevitable that where St. Paul was so full on 
the duty of the husband, he should refer to these words in Genesis 
in their proper original meaning. This meaning being so exactly 
adapted to enforce the practical precept, to take them otherwise, 
and to suppose that they are introduced allegorically, is to break 
the connexion, not to improve it. 

There are some differences of reading. ‘The articles before 
πατέρα and μητέρα are absent in BD*G, and are omitted by 
Lachm. and Treg., and bracketed by WH. ‘Tischendorf omitted 
them in his 7th ed., but restored them in the 8th in consequence 
of the added evidence of δὲ. αὐτοῦ is added after πατέρα in 
xe A 1900 K LP, Syr-Pesh. Boh. from LXX ; not in &* B D* G 77, 
Vulg. Arm. αὐτοῦ is added after μητέρα in P 47, Vss. 

For πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα, which is in 8° ΒΤ KL, Orig., τῇ γυναικί is read 
by N* AD*G. The readings in the Sept. also vary. 

32. τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστόν καὶ 
εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 


The second εἰς is om. by B K and some other authorities. 


We must first determine the meaning of μυστήριον and of μέγα. 
On the former word see on 1. 9. It does not mean “a mysterious 
thing or saying,” “ἃ saying of which the meaning is hidden or 
unfathomable.” As Sanday and Headlam observe (Rom. xi. 25), 
with St. Paul it is a mystery revealed. Again, as to péya, the 
English versions—not only the incorrect AV., “this is a great 
mystery,” but the grammatically correct RV., ‘‘this mystery is 
great ”—convey the idea that what is said is, that the mysteriousness 
is great, or, that the mystery is in a high degree a mystery. This is 
not only inconsistent with the meaning of μυστήριον, assuming, as 
it does, that “hiddenness” is the whole of its meaning (for to 
speak of a thing as in a high degree a revealed secret would be 
unintelligible), but it assigns to μέγα a meaning which does not 
belong to it. In English we may speak of great facility, great 
folly, simplicity, (πολλὴ μωρία, εὐηθεία) ; great ignorance (πολλὴ 
ἀγνοιαλ) ; great perplexity (πολλὴ oe but μέγας is not so 
used, for it properly expresses magnitude, not intensity. These 
linguistic facts are sufficient to set aside a large number, perhaps 
the majority, of interpretations of the clause. ‘The sense must be 
of this kind: ‘This doctrine of revelation is an important or 
profound one.” 

What, then, is the μυστήριον of which St. Paul thus speaks ἢ 
Some suppose it to be this statement about marriage, which to the 
heathen would be new. But this requires us to take λέγω in the 


V. 33] SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS 175 


sense “I interpret,” or the like, which it does not admit. It is 
better to understand it as referring to the comparison of marriage 
with union of Christ with the Church. The latter clause, then, 
expressly points out that the former does not refer to marriage in 
itself, and “λέγω has the same which it frequently has in St. Paul, 
1 mean.’ 

V. Soden takes τοῦτο to refer to what follows: “this secret, Ze. 
that which I am about to say as the secret sense of this sentence, is 
great, but I say it in reference to Christ and the Church,” comparing 
1 Cor. xv. 51, μυστήριον ὑμῖν λέγω. ‘This would be very elliptical. 

Hatch translates: ‘this symbol (sc. of the joining of husband 
and wife into one flesh) is a great one. I interpret it as referring 
to Christ and to the Church” (Zssays, p. 61). 

The rendering of the Vulgate is: “Sacramentum hoc magnum 
est ; ego autem dico in Christo et in ecclesia.” There are several 
other places in which μυστήριον is rendered ‘ ‘sacramentum,” Viz. 
ΒΡ Ὁ: ἐπ 3549 5 Col. 4, 29:5. τὸ πη i. τὸ Rev..1, 20. 

It was, however, no doubt, the rendering 1 in this passage which 
led to marriage being entitled a sacrament. In an encyclical 
of 1832 (quoted by Eadie) occurs the statement, ‘ Marriage is, 
according to St. Paul’s expression, a great sacrament in Christ and 
in the Church.” But the greatest scholars of the Church of Rome 
have rejected this view of the present passage. Cardinal Caietan 
says: ‘Non habes ex hoc loco, prudens lector, a Paulo conjugium 
esse sacramentum. Non enim dixit esse sacramentum, sed mys- 
terium.” And to the same effect Estius. Erasmus also says: 
““Neque nego matrimonium esse sacramentum, sed an ex hoc 
loco doceri possit proprie dici sacramentum quemadmodum 
baptismus dicitur, excuti volo.” As to the question whether 
marriage is properly to be reckoned a sacrament or not, this is 
very much a matter of definition. If sacrament is defined as in 
the Catechism of the Churches of England and Ireland and by 
other Reformed Churches, it is not, for it was not instituted by 
Christ. Even if we take Augustine’s definition, “a visible sign of 
an invisible grace,” there would be a difficulty. But if every rite 
or ceremony which either is, or includes in it, a sign of something 
spiritual, is to be called a sacrament, then marriage is well entitled 
to the name, especially in view of the apostle’s exposition here. 
But to draw any inference of this kind from the present passage is 
doubly fallacious, for this is not the meaning of μυστήριον ; and, 
secondly, St. Paul expressly states that it is not to marriage that 
he applies the term, but to his teaching about Christ and the 
Church ; or, according to the interpretation first mentioned, to the 
meaning of the verse from Genesis. 

33. πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς ot καθ᾽ Evin ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως 
ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν. 


176 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [VI. 1, 2 


πλήν. ‘ Howbeit—not to dwell on this matter of Christ and the 
Church, but to return to what I am treating of—.” 

καὶ ὑμεῖς, ye also, viz. after the pattern of Christ. AV. drops 
the καί, which is important. The precept is individualised by the 
ἕκαστος, 50 as to bring more home its force for each man. ὡς 
ἑαυτόν, as being himself, ver. 28. 

ἡ δὲ γυνὴ, ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα. 7 γυνή is best taken asa 
nom. abs. and ‘‘the wife—let her see,” etc. On φοβῆται, Oecum. 
rightly remarks: ὡς πρέπει γυναῖκα φοβεῖσθαι, μὴ δουλοπρεπῶς. 
‘“Nunquam enim erit voluntaria subjectio nisi praecedat rever- 
entia,” Calvin. 

VI. 1-9. Special injunctions to children and fathers, slaves and 
masters. Slaves are called on to regard their service as a service 
dove to Christ ; masters are reminded that they, too, are subject to the 
same Master, who has no respect of persons. 

1. τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑμῶν ἐν Κυρίῳ. ἐν Κυρίῳ is 
omitted by B D*G, but added in SAD’ K LP, Vulg. Syr. ete. 
Origen expressly, who mentions the ambiguity of the construction, 
7.6. that it may be either rots ἐν Κυρίῳ γονεῦσιν or ὑπακούετε ἐν K. 
If the words had been added from Col. iii. 20 they would probably 
have come after δίκαιον. Assuming that the words are genuine, as 
seems probable, the latter is the right construction. ‘In the 
Lord,” not as defining the limits of the obedience, ἐν ots ἂν μὴ 
προσκρούσῃς (τῷ Κυρίῳ), Chrys., but rather showing the spirit in 
which the obedience is to be yielded. It is assumed that the 
parents exercise their authority as Christian parents should, and 
we cannot suppose that the apostle meant to suggest to the 
children the possibility of the contrary. 

τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν δίκαιον, 2.6. καὶ φύσει δίκαιον καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου 
προστάσσεται, Theoph. Compare Col. 11. 20. From the children 
being addressed as members of the Church, Hofmann infers that 
they must have been baptized, since without baptism no one could 
be a member of the Church (Schriften, 11. 2, p. 192). Meyer’s 
reply, that the children of Christian parents were ἅγιοι by virtue of 
their fellowship with their parents (1 Cor. vii. 14), loses much of its 
point in the case of children who were past infancy when their 
parents became Christians. But no conclusion as to infant 
baptism can be deduced. 

2. ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ. ἥτις, “for such is,” 
Alf. To translate “seeing it is” would be to throw the motive to 
obedience too much on the fact of the promise. 

πρώτη ev ἐπ. has caused difficulty to expositors. The second 
commandment has something which resembles a promise attached. 
Origen, who mentions this difficulty, replies, first, that all the com- 
mandments of the Decalogue were zpwrai, being given first after the 
coming out of Egypt; or, if this be not admitted, that the promise 


VI. 3] SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS : 177 


in the second commandment was a general one, not specially 
attached to the observance of that precept. The latter reply has 
been adopted by most modern commentators. Others have 
supposed “first” to mean “first in the second table”; but the 
Jews assigned five commandments to each table, as we learn 
from Philo and Josephus. See also Lev. xix. 3 and Rom. xiii. 9. 
The position of the precept in the former passage and its omission 
in the latter agree with this arrangement. In either ‘case this 
would be the only commandment with promise. Meyer and 
Ellicott suppose, therefore, that it is not the Decalogue alone that 
is referred to. Brauneand Stier understand πρώτη as first in point 
of time, namely, the first which has to be learned. Compare Bengel 
(not adopting this view): ‘honor parentibus per obedientiam 
praesertim praestitus initio aetatis omnium praeceptorum obedi- 
entiam continet.” 

ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ. Ellicott, Meyer, and others take this to mean 

“in regard of, or, in point of, promise.” ‘The first command we 
meet with which involves a promise 5 (Ell). Meyer compares 
Diod. Sic. xiii. 37, ἐν δὲ εὐγενείᾳ καὶ πλούτῳ πρῶτος. But to make 
this parallel we should understand the words here: “foremost in 
promise,” 2.6. having the greatest promise attached, or, at least, 
“having the advantage in point of promise,” which is not their 
interpretation. Chrysostom SayS: ov τῇ τ εἶπεν αὐτὴν πρώτην, 
ἀλλὰ τῇ ἐπαγγελίᾳ. But it is precisely τῇ τάξει that Ell. and Mey. 
make it first, only not of all the commandments. It is better, then, 
to take ἐν (with Alford) as = characterised by, accompanied with, 
so that we might translate “with a promise.” But to what 
purpose is it to state that this is the first command in order 
accompanied with a promise, especially when it would be equally 
true, and much to the purpose, to say that it is the only command 
with a promise? On the whole, therefore, remembering that it is 
children who are addressed, the interpretation of Stier and Braune 
seems preferable. Westcott and Hort give a place in their margin 
to a different punctuation, viz. placing the comma after πρώτη, and 
connecting ἐπαγγελίᾳ with ἵνα. 

8. ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται, x.t.A. The text in the Sept. proceeds: 
καὶ ἵνα μακροχρόνιος γένῃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἧς Κύριος 6 Θεός σου διδωσί σοι. 
The latter words are probably omitted purposely as unsuitable to 
those addressed. ‘The future ἔσῃ is to be regarded as dependent 
on iva,—a construction which is found elsewhere in St. Paul, as 
1 Cor. ix. 18, ἵνα ἀδάπανον θήσω τὸ evayy.: Gal. 4, ἵνα ἡμᾶς 
καταδουλώσουσιν. In Rey. xxii. 14 we have future a conjunctive, 
just as in classical writers future and conjunctive are used after 
ὅπως. It is possible that ἔσῃ is used here because there was no 
aor. conj. of the verb. In the passage referred to in Rev. the 


future is ἔσται. 
12 


178 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS _ [VI. 4-6 


4. καὶ ot πατέρες. καί marks that the obligation was not all 
on the side of the children. So καὶ οἱ Κύριοι, ver. 9. πατέρες, 
“‘patres potissimum alloquitur, nam hos facilius aufert iracundia,” 
Bengel. μὴ παροργίζετε, Col. 111. 21, μὴ ἐρεθίζετε, “Do not 
irritate.” 

ἐν παιδείᾳ καὶ νουθεσίᾳ Κυρίου. παιδεία occurs only in one 
other place in St. Paul, viz. 2 Tim. iii. 16, πᾶσα γραφή. 
ὠφέλιμος... πρὸς παιδείαν THY ev δικαιοσύνῃ. The verb παιδεύω 
also, although used of chastening in 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9, is 
employed in a wider sense in 2 Tim. ii. 25; Tit. ii. 12. There is 
no sufficient reason, then, for supposing that the two substantives 
here are distinguished, as Grotius thinks: “ παιδεία hic significare 
videtur institutionem per poenas: νουθεσία autem est ea institutio 
quae fit verbis,” followed by Ellicott and Alford. Rather, παιδεία 
is, as in classical writers, the more general, νουθεσία more specific, 
of instruction and admonition. νουθεσία is a later form for 
νουθέτησις. Κυρίου is not concerning the Lord,” as Theodoret, 
etc.,—a meaning which the genitive after such a word as vov6. can 
hardly have, but the subjective genitive ; the Lord is regarded as 
the guiding principle of the education. 

5. οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις. ‘This is the 
order in δὲ Α ΒΡ, etc. Rec. has τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα. 

Bengel thinks that x. σάρκα is added, because after the mention 
of the true κύριος it was not fitting to use κύριοι without qualifica- 
tion. In Col. iii, 22 a sentence intervenes, but still the reason 
holds good, for ὃ Κύριος was their κύριος also κατὰ πνεῦμα. 
δεσπότης is the word used for the master οἱ slaves in the Pastorals 
and 1 Peter. 

μετὰ φόβου καὶ tpdpouv. These words are similarly associated 
in τ Cor. ii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 15; Phil. ii. 12, expressing only anxious 
solicitude about the performance of duty, so that there is no 
allusion to the hardness of the service. In Col. ill. 22 it is φοβού- 
μενοι τὸν κύριον. 

ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδίας. The word ἁπλότης is used several 
times by St. Paul (by him only in the N.T.), and always indicates 
singleness and honesty of purpose, sometimes showing itself in 
liberality. (See Fritzsche’s note on Rom. xii. 8, vol. ui. p. 62.) 
Here the meaning is the obvious one, there was to be no double- 
heartedness in their obedience, no feeling of reluctance, but 
genuine heartiness and goodwill. ἔνι yap καὶ μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου 
δουλεύειν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐξ εὔνοιας, ἀλλὰ κακούργως, Oecum. 

ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ, as ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, v. 22, “so that your service to 
your master is regarded as a service to Christ.” 

6. μὴ Kat ὀφθαλμοδουλίαν. “Not in the way of 6¢0.” The 
word is not found elsewhere except in Col. iii. 22, and may have 
been coined by St. Paul. The adjective ὀφθαλμόδουλος is found 


VI. 7, 8] SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS 179 


in the Afost. Constit., but with reference to this passage (i. p. 
299 A, ed. Cotel.). The meaning is obvious. 

ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι. This word is not found in classical writers ; 
it occurs in the Sept., Ps. lii. (111.} 6; not as a rendering of our 
Hebrew text. It is also found in Psa/¢. Sol. iv. ὃ, το. This is the 
opposite of ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ as well as of the following words. 

GAN ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ. τοῦ before 
Χριστοῦ rests on insufficient authority, [) 5 K L, etc., against αὶ D* 
GLP, etc. Not subordinate to the following clause, as if it were 
“as servants who are doing,” etc., for the words are clearly in 
contrast to the preceding, and ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλ. has much more 
force if taken as a separate character. 

6, '7. ἐκ ψυχῆς pet εὐνοίας δουλεύοντες ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ. ἐκ ψυχῆς 
may be connected either with what precedes or with what follows. 
The latter connexion (adopted by Syr. Chrys. Jerome, Lachm. Alf. 
WH.) seems preferable, for ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ does not 
require such a qualification, nor is there any tautology in taking 
ex ψ. with the following, for these words express the source in the 
feeling of the servant towards his work; per’ εὐνοίας his feeling 
towards his master (Harless). Compare Raphel’s apt quotation 
from Xen.: οὐκοῦν εὔνοιαν πρῶτον, ἔφην ἐγώ, δεήσει αὐτὸν [τὸν ἐπί. 
tporov | ἔχειν σοι καὶ τοῖς σοῖς εἰ μέλλοι ἀρκέσειν ἀντὶ σοῦ παρών. (Oecon. 
xii. 5). Treg. puts a comma after εὐνοίας, WH. after δουλεύοντες. 

ὡς before τῷ Κυρίῳ rests on preponderant evidence, δὶ A B D* 
GP, Vulg. Syr. It is omitted by D°K L. Internal evidence is 
in its favour, since δουλ. τῷ x. would be tautologous with δοῦλοι 
Χριστοῦ. 

8. εἰδότες ὅτι ἕκαστος ὃ ἂν ποιήσῃ ἀγαθόν, τοῦτο κομίσεται παρὰ 
Κυρίου. 

There is great uncertainty as to the reading. 

ὅτι ἕκαστος ὃ ἂν (or ἐὰν) ποιήσῃ, AD GP 17 37, Vulg. Arm, 

ὅτι ἕκαστος ἐάν τι, B, Petr. Alex. 

ὅτι ἐάν τι ἕκαστος, L* 46 Τ15. 

ὃ ἐάν τι ἕκαστος ποιήσῃ, L** and most cursives. This is the Rec. Text. 

ὅτι (probably to be read 6 τι) ἐὰν ποιήσῃ, %*, corrected by N° by the 
insertion of 6 before ἐάν. 

There are minor variations, 

The best supported reading is that first mentioned, which is: adopted by 
Treg. and Tisch. 8; but Meyer and Ellicott think the Rec. better explains 
the others. WH. adopt the reading of B. 

In the reading of Rec. the relative is to be understood as separated from 
τι by tmesis. Cf. Plato, Zegg. ix. 864 E, ἣν ἄν τινα καταβλάψῃ. 

κομίσεται, & A BD*G, is better attested than the Rec. κομιεῖται. τοῦ 


also of Rec. before Kupiov is rejected on the authority of all the chief 
uncials, 


κομίζεσθαι is to receive back, as, for example, a deposit, hence 
here it implies an adequate return. Compare 2 Cor. v. 10, iva 
κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ TOD σώματος, and Col. ili. 25. 


1&0 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [ VI. 9,10 


This lesson to slaves is equally a lesson for all kinds of service, 
as the following for all masters. 

9. καὶ ot κύριοι. See on καί, ver. 4. 

τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε. 7.4. act in a similar manner, in the same 
spirit. De Wette refers it to ἀγαθόν. The Greek comm. pressed 
τὰ αὐτά as if it meant δουλεύετε αὐτοῖς. 

ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπειλήν. ‘Giving up your threatening.” The article 
indicates the well known and familiar threatening, ‘‘ qaemadmodum 
vulgus dominorum solet,” Erasmus. 

εἰδότες, κιτιλ. Wetstein cites a remarkable parallel from Seneca, 
Thyest. 607, “Vos, quibus rector maris atque terrae Jus dedit 
magnum necis atque vitae, Ponite inflatos tumidosque vultus. 
Quicquid a vobis minor extimescit, Major hoc vobis dominus 
minatur! Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.” 


καὶ αὐτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν is supported by preponderant authority, | Ne (ἑαυτῶν) 
ABD*, Vulg. Boh. Arm., Petr. Alex. etc. D°G have καὶ αὐτῶν ὑμῶν : Καὶ 
and most cursives, καὶ ὃ ῶν αὐτῶν. Meyer thinks the mention of slaves 
(αὐτῶν) here appeared unsuitable, partly in itself and partly in comparison 
with Col. iv. 1. Whether this be a correct account of the causes of the 
variation, it cannot be doubted that the reading attested by the best MSS. 
here is the more forcible, expressing, not merely the fact that ‘‘ye also 
have a Master,” but that both you and they are subjects of the same Master. 


προσωπολημψία, like προσωπολημπτής, and the verb προσω- 
πολημπτέω, 15 found only in N.T. and ecclesiastical writers. ‘The 
expression πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν has a different meaning in the N.T. 
from that which it had in the O.T. In the latter it only meant to 
show favour, in the former it is to show partiality, especially on 
account of external advantages. 

10-12. Exhortation to prepare for the spiritual combat by 
arming themselves with the panoply of God, remembering that they 
have to do with no mere mortal foes, but with spiritual powers. 

10. τοῦ λοιποῦ. So N* AB τη. 

τὸ λοιπόν. ὃ DGKLP, Chrys. εἰς. 


Meyer points out that B 17 have δυναμοῦσθε instead of ἐνδι, a variation 
which Meyer thinks may have arisen from a confusion of the N of λοιπόν 
with the N of ἐνδυν., thus pointing to the reading λοιπόν. Properly, τοῦ 
λοιποῦ means ‘‘henceforth, for the future,” Gal. vi. 17, in which sense τὸ 
λοιπόν may also be used ; but the latter alone is used in the sense ‘‘for the 
rest,” Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8; 2 Thess. 111,1. As the latter is the meaning here, 
we should expect τὸ λοιπόν, 


ἀδελφοί pou is added in Rec. before ἐνδυν., with 8° K L P, most 
cursives, Syr. (both) Boh., but om. by 8* BD 17, Arm. Aeth. 
AG, Vulg. Theodoret have ἀδελῴοί without pov. It has probably 
come in by assimilation to other passages im which τὸ λοιπόν 
occurs (see above). St. Paul does not address his readers thus in 
this Epistle. 

ἐνδυναμοῦσθε. “Be strengthened.” Cf. Rom. iv. 20. Not 





VI. 11, 12] THE PANOPLY OF GOD 181 


middle but passive, as elsewhere in N.T. (Acts ix. 22 ; Rom. iv. 20; 
2 Tam, τ τ; Heb; κὶ 5. Lhe active occurs. Philivs 233 1. Tim. 
1. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 17. The simple verb δυναμόω, which B 17 have 
here, is used in Col. i. 11 ,and according to x* A D* in Heb. xi. 34. 
ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι occurs once in the Sept. Ps. 11. (li.) 7 rather in a bad 
sense. ‘There is no reason why a verb which occurs once in the 
Sept. and several times in the N.T. should be said to be “ peculiar 
to the Alexandrian Greek.” 

kal ἐν τῷ κράτει τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ. Nota hendiadys. Compare 
ἍΤ: 

11. ἐνδύσασθε τὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ““Ρεΐ on the panoply of 
God.” πανοπλία occurs also in Luke xi. 22. The emphasis is 
clearly on παν. not on τοῦ Θεοῦ. Observe the repetition in ver. 13, 
“of God,” z.e. provided by God, ἄπασιν διανέμει τὴν Θασιλικὴν παν- 
tevxiav, Theodoret. ‘There is no contrast with other armour, nor 
is πανοπλία to be taken as merely =“armatura.” The complete- 
ness of the armament is the ΤΣ insisted on. St. Paul v 





hold your ground again ae an 1 expression suited to the 
figure. 


litar 
TR ΤΕ θοδείας. Cf. iv. 14. The plural expresses the concrete 
workings of the μεθοδεία. We can hardly press it as specially 
appropriate to the military metaphor and = “stratagems.” 

12. ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἣ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα. 

ἡμῖν, with § A D° ΚΊ, Ρ and most mss. and Vss. 

ὑμῖν, BD*G, Goth. Aeth., adopted by Lach., and admitted to the 
margin by Treg. and WH. The second person would very readily occur to 
a scribe, the whole context being in the second person. 

ἡ πάλη. “Our wrestling.” The word is suitable to zpos αἷμα 
καὶ o., but not to the struggle in which the πανοπλία is required. 
The word is indeed found in a more general sense (see Ellicott), 
but only in poetry, as “wrestling” also might be used in our own 
tongue. But as the word is here used to describe what the 
struggle is not, it is most natural to supply a more general word, 
such as ἡ μάχη Or paxeréov, in the following clause, according to 
an idiom frequent in Greek writers. 

αἷμα καὶ σάρκα, in this order here only. Jerome understands 
this of our own passions ; but that would be zpos τὴν σάρκα without 
αἷμα. Moreover, the contrast is clearly not between foes within 
and foes without, but between human and superhuman powers. 


182 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [VI. 12 


πρὸς Tas ἀρχάς, πρὸς Tas ἐξουσίας. See on i. 21. 

πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας. “ World-rulers.” The word κοσμοκρά- 
twp occurs in the Orphica (vill. 11, xi. 11), and is used by the 
Schol. on Aristoph. Wud. 397, Σεσάγχωσις ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Αἰγυπτίων 
κοσμοκράτωρ γεγονώς. It frequently occurs in Rabbinical writers 
(transliterated), sometimes of kings whose rule was world-wide, as 
“tres reges κοσμοκράτορες, dominatores ab extremitate mundi ad 
extremitatem ejus, Nebucadnesar, Evilmerodach, Belsazar” (Sir 
Rab, iii. 4, ap. Wetst.); also of the four kings whom Abraham 
pursued (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 57.1). These are so called to add 
glory to Abraham’s victory. Also the angel of death is so called, 
and by the Gnostics the Devil (Iren. i. 1). In the Zest. Χ 77 Patr., 
Test. Sol. the demons say: ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν τὰ λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα, οἱ 
κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ κόσμου τούτους It appears, therefore, that it 
differs from “rulers” in implying that their rule extends over the 
κόσμος. Schoettgen supposes that St. Paul means the Rabbis and 
Doctors of the Jews, and he cites a passage from the Talmud 
where it is argued that the Rabbis are to be called kings; he also 
compares Acts iv. 26. But the context appears to be decisive 
against such aview. ‘The contest is clearly a spiritual one. Com- 
pare the designation of Satan as 6 Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, 2 Cor. 
iv. 43 6 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, John xiv. 30. 

TOU OKOTOUS TOUTOU, 

So, without τοῦ αἰῶνος, N* A B D* G 17 672, Vulg. Boh. Syr- 
Pesh. and Harcl. (text), ete. 


After σκότους, τοῦ αἰῶνος is added by 8* ΤῊ Κα LP most mss. The 
words were not likely to be omitted because they seemed superfluous or diffi- 
cult to explain ; and an omission from homoeoteleuton is not to be supposed 
in the face of so many documents. They might, on the contrary, have been 
added as a gloss, the phrase σκότους τούτου being rare. 


πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας. ‘Against the spirit forces of 
wickedness,” which belong to or are characterised by πονηρία. 
RV. has es hosts of wickedness.” So Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, com- 
paring τὸ ἱππικόν, “the cavalry,” Rev. ix. 16; τὸ πολιτικόν, Herod. 
Vil. 103; Ta λῃστρικά, Polyaen. v. 14. 141. But these are not 
really parallel ; ἱππικόν, primarily meaning ‘appertaining to tro,” 
hence “equestrian,” was naturally used for brevity to designate the 
cavalry of an army, as πεζικά the infantry, just like our “horse and 
foot:” “Thus Polybitxv. 3. 5, ᾿Αννιβὰς ἐλλείπων τοῖς ἱππικοῖς, C1 
the matter of cavalry”; 70. xviil. 5. 5, AirwAo. . . . καθ᾽ ὅσον ἐν 
τοῖς πεζικοῖς ἐλλιπεῖς εἶσι... κατὰ τοσοῦτον τοῖς ἱππικοῖς διαφέ- 
ρουσι πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων : 70. 111. 114. 5, τὸ τῶν 
ἱππικῶν πλῆθος τὸ σύμπαν τοῖς Καρχηδονίοις εἰς μυρίους. Ἐπ ον ΠῚ 
Rev ix, 16 we have 6 ἀριθμὸς τῶν στρατευμάτων τοῦ ἱππικοῦ. But 
πνευματικὸν never had such a signification, nor would its etymology 
lead us to expect that it could be so used; for it does not mean 


VI. 12] THE PANOPLY OF GOD 183 


what relates to πνεύματα, but to τὸ πνεῦμα. It would be almost as 
reasonable to conclude from the use of the English ‘ horse” 
and “foot,” that “spirit” could be used for a host of spirits, as to 
draw a like conclusion about πνευματικά from the use of ἱππικά, ete. 
Moreover, τὰ ἱππικά does not mean “hosts or armies” of horses or 
of horsemen ; and, if we were to follow the analogy of its meaning, 
we should interpret τὰ wv. τῆς πον. as =the πνευματικόν constituent 
of πονηρία. τὰ λῃστρικά, too, does not mean “bands of robbers,” 
but of “pirate ships,” which are themselves called λῃστρικαί, 
Polyaenus, v. 14. 141 ; and τὸ πολιτικόν, in Herod. vii. 103, means 
that part of the population which consists of πολίται. This word, 
like ἱππικόν, used in such a connexion as it has there, at once 
conveys this meaning. But to give πνενματικά here the meaning 
“spiritual armies, or hosts,” is to depart wholly from the ordinary 
use of the word. 

Giving up, therefore, this rendering as untenable, we may trans- 
late “the spiritual forces, or elements of wickedness.” 

ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις is connected by Chrysostom with 9 πάλη 
ἐστίν. Thus: ἐν τοῖς ἐπ. ἡ μάχη κεῖται. .. ὡς ἂν εἰ ἔλεγεν, ἡ 
συνθήκη ἐν τίνι κεῖται : ἐν χρυσῷ, 1.6. Our Contest is for the heavenly 
blessings, and so Theodoret, Oecum. a7, But in the illustration 
cited it is the connexion with κεῖται that makes this sense possible ; 
the idea is “rests in, or depends on,” which does not suit 7 πάλη 
ἐστίν. 

The view generally adopted by modern expositors is that τὰ ἐπ. 
means the seat of the evil spirits or spiritual hosts referred to, 
corresponding to the τοῦ ἀέρος of 11. 2. As Alford expresses it, 
that habitation which in 11. 2, when speaking of mere matters of 
fact, was said to be in the ἀήρ, is, now that the difficulty and im- 
portance of the Christian conflict is being set forth, represented as 
ἐν Tots €7.— Over us and too strong for us without the panoply of 
God. He compares τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, Matt. vi. 26. This 
comment seems to amount to this, that these spiritual hosts dwell 
in the air; but to impress us the more with the difficulty of the 
combat, the air is called “heaven.” ‘There is, however, no proof 
that τὰ ἐπουράνια meant the atmosphere, and this is not the mean- 
ing of the word elsewhere, ¢.g. i. 3, 20, ii. 6. 

The view of Eadie, σά, is that ra ἐπ. means the celestial spots 
occupied by the Church, and in them this combat is to be 
maintained, ‘These evil spirits have invaded the Church, are 
attempting to pollute, divide, and overthrow it.” Barry, while 
adopting the former view of τὰ ἐπ., yet adds that the meaning 
points to the power of evil as directly spiritual, not acting through 
physical and human agency, but attacking the spirit in that higher 
aspect in which it contemplates heavenly ‘things and ascends to the 
communion with God. 


184 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [VI. 18, 14 


In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, which is pre-Christian, and 
perhaps as early as B.c. 30, we have “ἃ scheme of the seven 
heavens which, in some of its prominent features, agrees with that 
conceived by St. Paul. Paradise is situated in the third heaven 
as in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, whereas, according to later Judaism, it be- 
longed to the fourth heaven. In the next place the presence of 
evil in some part of the heavens is recognised. ‘Thus, in Eph. 
vi. 12, we meet with the peculiar statement, Against the spiritual 
hosts of wickedness in the heavens” (Morfill and Charles, p. x1). 
Charles points out other parallels between the Epistle and the 
Book of the Secrets of E-noch ; e.g. Eph. iii. 10, iv. 10, 25 (pp. Xxil, 
xli); and the possibility that the present passage has been in- 
fluenced by these speculations must be admitted. 

13-18. Detailed description of the spiritual armour. 

13. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ πονηρᾷ. ‘The evil day,” the day of the 
power of evil, when the conflict is most severe, “‘any day of which 
it may be said, ‘this is your hour, and the power of darkness,’” 
Barry. Meyer understands it as referring to the great outbreak of 
Satanic power expected to occur before the second coming. 
ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι ; Oecum. and Theoph. take this to mean 
“having overcome all,” AV. marg.; but although the verb has this 
sense occasionally in classical writers, or rather ‘to despatch, to 
finish,” ‘ conficere,” it never has it in St. Paul, who uses it twenty 
times. This would not be decisive if this meaning were more 
suitable here. But the conflict is perpetual in this world, it is 
ever being renewed. On the other hand, we cannot without 
tautology understand this clause as merely expressing preparation 
for the combat. κατεργάζεσθαι, too, means to accomplish a 
difficult work: “notat rem arduam,” Fritzsche, and could hardly be 
used of mere arming for the fight. It appears, then, to mean 
having done all that duty requires, viz. from time to time. The 
Vulgate (not Jerome) has ‘omnibus perfecti,” or, in some MSS., 
“in omnibus perfecti,” following, as some think, the reading 
κατειργασμένο. A has κατεργασμένοι, doubtless a mistake for 
κατεργασάμενοι, not meant for κατειργασμένοι. στῆναι, opposed to 
φεύγειν, “hold your ground.” 

14. στῆτε οὖν. This στῆτε cannot be taken in the same sense 
as the preceding, otherwise we should have the end there aimed at, 
here assumed as already attained when the arming begins. 

In the following details of the figure, each part of the equip- 
ment has its appropriate interpretation, which, however, must not 
be pressed too minutely. In the case of the breastplate and the 
helmet, St. Paul follows Isa. lix. 17, ἐνεδύσατο δικαιοσύνην ὡς 
θώρακα, καὶ περιέθετο περικεφάλαιον σωτηρίου ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, but 
the remainder of Isaiah’s description was unsuitable, viz. καὶ 
περιεβάλετο ἱμάτιον ἐκδικήσεως καὶ τὸ περιβόλαιον ζήλου. The 


VL 15} THE PANOPLY OF GOD 185 


figure of Isaiah is more fully carried out in Wisd. v. 18, 20, 
λήψεται πανοπλίαν τὸν ζῆλον αὐτοῦ . .. ἐνδύσεται θώρακα he 
σύνην, καὶ περιθήσεται κόρυθα κρίσιν ἀνυπόκριτον. λήψεται ἀσπίδα 
ἀκαταμάχητον ὁσιότητα, ὀξυνεὶ δὲ ἀπότομον ὀργὴν εἰς ῥομφαίαν. In 
ΤΕΡῚ πὶ: 55 δικαιοσύνη and ἀλήθεια. are both girdles. 

περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. The aorists are 
properly used, since the arming was complete before the στῆτε. 
The present would mean that they were to be arming themselves 
when they took up their position, which would be rather a mark of 
unpreparedness. The girdle was a necessary part of the equipment 
of a soldier to make rapid movement possible ; and, indeed, was 
commonly used to support the sword, though not in Homeric 
times. But there is no reference to that use here, the sword being 
not referred to until ver. 17. ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ἐν, instrumental, ‘ with” ;. 
“truth,” not the objective truth of the gospel, which is the sword, 
ver. 17, but truth in its widest sense as an element of character. 
Compare ch. v. 9. 

τὸν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύνης, genitive of apposition. δικ., as in 
ch. v. 9, Christian uprightness of character, which like a breast- 
plate defends the heart from the assaults of evil. Eadie (with 
Harless, a/.) understands it of the righteousness of faith, 2.6. 
Christ’s justifying righteousness, remarking that the article has a 
special prominence. But -the article is used in accordance with 
the ordinary rule, θώρακα having the article. The faith by which 
this justification is attained is mentioned in ver. 16. That no 
Christian possesses entire rectitude is not an objection, the breast- 
plate is not faultlessness, which would, in fact, be inconsistent with 
the figure, but the actual rightness of character wrought by Christ. 

15. ὑποδησάμενοι τοὺς πόδας, no doubt referring to the “cal- 
igae” of the Roman soldier. 

ἐν ἑτοιμασίᾳ. The more classical form is ἑτοιμότης, but 
Hippocr. has ἑτοιμασία. The word occurs in the Sept. in the 
sense of “preparedness” (Ps. ix. 41, x. 17), but more frequently 
as representing the Hebrew ji2, which they rendered according 


to their view of its etymology, not its meaning. It is quite 
erroneous to interpret it here by this use, or rather misuse, of it, as 
some expositors have done, taking it, for example, to mean ‘vel 
constantiam in tuenda religione Christi, vel religionem adeo ipsam 
certam illam quidem et fundamento cui insistere possis, similem,” 
Koppe. This is also against the figure. Shoes are not the firm 
foundation on which one stands, but we may compare with them 
the readiness of mind with which one advances to the conflict, and 
which is wrought by the gospel τοῦ εὐαγ. It is not preparation to 
preach the gospel that is meant, for the apostle is addressing all 
Christians ; and, moreover, this interpretation does not agree ‘with 
the figure. 


136 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [VI 16, 17 


τῆς εἰρήνης, peace with God and amongst men, see ch. il. 17 ; 

an oxymoron. ἂν τῷ διαβόλῳ πολεμῶμεν εἰρηνεύομεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, 
Chrys. 

16. ἐν πᾶσιν: SoNBP 17, a@/., Cat. text, Vulg. Boh. Syr-Harcl. 
Aeth. 

ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, AD GKL most cursives, Syr-Pesh. Arm. ete. 
There is a similar variety in Luke xvi. 26, where δὲ BL Boh. read ἐν, 
but AD X Aad. éri. This alone is sufficient to set aside Ellicott’s suggestion 


that ἐν here was a correction for the ambiguous ἐπί. Meyer thinks it was 
substituted as the more common. 


If ἐπί is read it is not to be rendered ‘above all,” AV. Beza, 
nor “over all,” but ‘in addition to all”; cf. Luke ili. 20, προσέθηκε 
Kal τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσι. 

τὸν θυρεόν. θυρεός is used in Homer of a great stone placed 
against a door to keep it shut. In later writers, Plutarch, Polybius, 
ete., at τ a large oblong shield, “‘scutum,” according to Polyb. 
4 ft. by 24, differing from the ἀσπίς, which was small and round. 
But in Wisdom, quoted above, ὁσιότης is the a ἀσπίς or ‘clypeus.” 
St. Paul’s purpose, however, is different, and he is describing a 
heavy armed warrior well furnished for defence. 

τῆς πίστεως, genitive of apposition. Only where faith is weak 
does the enemy gain access. In 1 Thess. v. 8 faith and love are 
the breastplate. 

ἐν ᾧ δυνήσεσθε. The future is properly used, not because the 
combat does not begin until the day of the great future conflict 
with evil, but because the whole duration of the fight is contem- 
plated.~ At all times ye shall be able, etc. 

τὰ βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ τὰ πεπυρωμένα σβέσαι. ‘The figure alludes 
to the darts or arrows tipped with tow dipped in pitch and set on 
fire, mentioned, for example, in Herod. viii. 52. Some of the 
older interpreters (Hammond, 44) understood the word to mean 
poisoned, the word “fiery” being used with reference to the 
sensation produced ; but this is contrary to the grammatical mean- 
ing of the word. ‘Fiery darts” is a suitable figure for fierce 

temptations ; beyond this there is no need to go. 

σβέσαι is appropriate, since the shields alluded to were of wood 
covered with leather, in which when the arrow fixed itself the fire 
would go out. So Thucydides tells us of hides being used for this 
very purpose (ii. 75). 

τά is omitted by B D* G, and bracketed by Treg. and WH.; omitted by 
Lachm. If omitted, the interpretation would be ‘‘fire tipped as they are.’ 


The authority for omission is small; but the insertion would be more easily 
accounted for than the accidental omission. 


17. καὶ τὴν περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου δέξασθε. This verse is 
separated from ver. 16 by a full stop in RV. as well as by Lachm. 
Tisch., not Treg. WH. But though the construction is changed, 


" 


VI. 18] THE PANOPLY OF GOD 187 


as in 1. 22, this is only a result of the rapidity of thought for which 
a strict adherence to the participial construction might be a 
hindrance. The same vividness of conception leads the writer to 
put τὴν περικ. first. 

᾿ς Σωτήριον is not used elsewhere by St. Paul; here it is taken 
with the preceding word from the Sept. Theodoret understands 
it as masculine, referring to Christ; and so Bengel, “salutaris, 2.6. 
Christi”; but this is refuted by the parallel, 1 Thess. v. 8, where 
the zepix. is the hope of salvation. Soden thinks that in that 
passage the apostle purposely corrects the σωτήριον of the Sept. 

kal τὴν μάχαιραν Tod πνεύματος. ‘This cannot well be a genitive 
of apposition, since the following clause explains the sword as ῥῆμα 
Θεοῦ. Olshausen, indeed, and Soden, take the relative 6 as refer- 
ring to πνεύματος. ‘They understand the writer as speaking of the 
Holy Spirit in relation to man, as finding expression in the word 
of God. But there is no parallel for thus calling the Spirit ῥῆμα 
Θεοῦ. It is much more natural to interpret tov πν. as “ which is 
given by the Spirit”; nor is there any difficulty in taking this 
genitive differently from the others, since this alone is a genitive 
of a personal name. Chrysostom suggests the alternative: ἤτοι τὸ 
Πνεῦμά φησιν, ἤτοι ἐν TH πνευματικῇ μαχαίρᾳ (OY ἤτοι TO χάρισμα τὸ 
πνευματικόν, διὰ γὰρ πνευματικῆς μαχαίρας, K.T.A.). 

ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα Θεοῦ. Compare Heb. iv. 12, ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ... 
τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον. 

δέξασθε. ‘* Accipite, oblatum a Domino,” Bengel. 

AD°KL, etc., read δέξασθαι, perhaps only by itacism. The verb is 
omitted by D* G, αἰ. 

18. διὰ πάσης προσευχῆς Kal δεήσεως, k.t.A. These words 
are best taken with the principal imperative στῆτε, not simply with 
the previous clause, for πάσης and ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ would not agree 
with the momentary act δέξασθε, which is itself subordinate to 
στῆτε. ‘With all prayer, 2.6. prayer of every form.” 

προσευχή and δέησις differ in this respect, that the former is 
used only of prayer, whether supplication or not, to God, while 
δέησις means “request,” and may be addressed to either God or 
man. Here, then, we may say that zp. expresses that the prayer 
is addressed to God, and 6., that it involves a request. Compare 
Phil. iv. 6, ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ Kat τῇ δέησει, and see on Lk. i. 13. 

ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ corresponds with the ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθαι of 
ἘΠ ΘΕ ΜῈ πὴ: 

ἐν Πνεύματι. “In the Spirit” (cf. Jude 21) ποῖ-- ἐκ ψυχῆς, for 
which interpretation St. Paul’s usage supplies no justification, 
besides which it was not necessary to say that the prayer was to be 
from the heart. Chrysostom supposes ἐν zv. to be in contrast to 
βαττολογίαις, which is also open to the objection that he who has put 
on the specified armour must be assumed not to pray ἐν βαττολογίᾳ. 


188 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS [VI. 19 


καὶ εἰς αὐτό. ‘‘Thereunto,” ze. to the προσευχόμενοι ἐν π. κ. 
ἐν πν. 

Rec. has τοῦτο after αὐτό, with D°J K, etc.; but αὐτό alone, ἃ A Β (Ὁ ἢ 
G, αὐτόν). The frequent occurrence of αὐτὸ τοῦτο in St. Paul accounts for 
the insertion. 

ἀγρυπνοῦντες ἐν πάσῃ προσκαρτερήσει. Compare Col. iv. 2, τῇ 
προσευχῇ προσκαρτερεῖτε, γρηγοροῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ, ‘ keeping 
watch,” or “being watchful”; cf. Mark xiii. 33, ἀγρυπνεῖτε καὶ 
προσεύχεσθε: tb. 35, γρηγορεῖτε: Luke xxi. 36, ἀγρυπνεῖτε ἐν παντὶ 
καιρῷ δεόμενοι, K.T.A. 

IIpooxaprépynois is not found elsewhere, but the verb προσκαρ- 
τερέω is frequent both in classical writers and N.T. always with the 
sense of continued waiting on, attention to, adherence, ete. Cf. 
Acts il. 42, τῇ διδαχῇ: 2b. 46, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ: Vill. 13, τῷ Φιλίππῳ: 
Mark iil. 9, ἵνα πλοιάριον προσκαρτερῇ αὐτῷ : Rom. xii. 12, προσευχῇ: 
26. xiii. 6, εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο. It is clear, then, that Alford is not justi- 
fied in rendering it “importunity” in order to avoid a hendiadys. 
Practically, there is a hendiadys. 

περὶ πάντων TOV ἁγίων, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμου. καί, introducing a special 
case, see ch. v. 18. Harless and Eadie distinguish περί here from 
ὑπέρ, regarding the latter as more vague. ‘They could not know 
much about all saints, and they were to pray about them.” Eadie 
admits, however, that such a distinction cannot be uniformly 
carried out. Meyer, to prove the prepositions Synonymous, quotes 
Dem. Phil.) Dy 71. μὴ περὶ τῶν δικαίων μηδ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἔξω πραγμάτων 
εἶναι τὴν βουλήν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ : but this passage rather 
indicates the contrary ; “ποῖ about a question of justice, but in 
defence of.” So also the similar one, οὐ περὶ δόξης οὐδ᾽ ὑπὲρ μέρους 
χώρας πολεμοῦσι, 1.6. “not about a matter of glory, but in defence 
of,” etc. ὑπὲρ δόξης might have been used, but the idea would not 
be quite the same. Here, too, ὑπέρ expresses with more precision 
“on behalf of” ; but the reason of the difference is probably not to 
be found in the difference between πάντων τῶν ἁγίων and ἐμοῦ, but 
in the fact that the special object of the latter prayer is stated: 
‘and on behalf of me, that,” etc. See Dale, Lect. xxiv. p. 437. 

19, 20. Zhe apostle’s request for their prayers for himself, that 
he may have freedom to proclaim the mystery of the gospel for which 
he is an ambassador. 

iva μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός μου. Λόγος, in the 
sense of utterance, as 2 Cor. xi. 2, ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ: The words 
ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στ. are by some connected with the following. ‘Thus 
Grotius: “ut ab hac custodia militari liber per omnem urbem 
perferre possem sermonem,” etc., but παρρησία never refers to 
external freedom, and its meaning here is further determined by 
παρρησιάσωμαι, ver. 20. ΤῸ take παρρησίᾳ as merely epexegetical 
of ἀνοίξει τ. στ. would be very flat. 


VI. 20] REQUEST FOR PRAYER 189 


Taken with the preceding, the words may mean the opening of 
the mouth by God, as in Ps. li. 17. Or they:-may mean, “when I 
open my mouth.” The latter is the interpretation adopted by 
Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer. But so understood, the words are 
superfluous, not to say trivial. 

On the other hand, with the former interpretation they give a 
fulness of expression to the idea in δοθῇ λόγος, which is in harmony 
with the gravity of the thought ; they complete from the subjective 
side what is expressed on the objective side in δοθῇ λόγος. This 
is the view of Harless, Olsh. Soden. The absence of the article 
is also in its favour. Compare Col. iv. 3, although there it is ἵνα 
6 Θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου. ‘Opening the mouth” is an 
expression used only where some grave utterance is in question. 

ἐν παρρησίᾳ γνωρίσαι. “ΤῸ make known with openness of 
speech”; cf. Phil. i. 20. The margin of RV. connects ἐν παρρησίᾳ 
with the preceding words, as the AV. had done. ‘This involves a 
tautology with παρρησιάσωμαι. 


δοθείη of Rec. rests on very slight evidence. 


τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγ. See ch. 1. 9. 

20. ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει. οὗ refers to τὸ μυστ., for this is 
the object of γνωρίσαι, and γνωρίσαι is in substance connected with 
πρεσβεύω. Compare Col. iv. 3, λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ δι᾿ ὃ 
καὶ δέδεμαι. The simplest view is probably the best: “I am an 
ambassador in chains”; but Grotius understands the words to 
mean: “nunc quoque non desino legationem”; but this would 
require some emphasis on ἁλύσει, as, for example, καὶ é 4A. 
πρεσβεύω : and there is no reference here, as in Phil. i. 12 ff., to the 
good effects of his imprisonment. ‘The oxymoron is noted by 
Bengel and Wetstein: “alias legati, jure gentium sancti et 
inviolabiles, in vinculis haberi non poterant.” So, indeed, 
Theoph., τοὺς πρέσβεις νόμος μηδὲν πάσχειν κακόν. ἐν ἁλύσει is in 
distinct opposition to ἐν παρρησίᾳ. 

Paley and others have drawn attention to the use of ἅλυσις 
here as referring to the “custodia militaris” in which St. Paul 
was kept at Rome, Acts xxviii. 16, 20; cf. 2 Tim. 1 16. It is true 
the singular might possibly be used in a general sense, although 
the instances cited from Polyb. of εἰς τὴν ἅλυσιν ἐμπίπτειν (xxi. 3. 
3, lv. 76. 5) are not parallel, since the article there is generic. 
Still it can hardly be denied that the term has a special suitability 
to the circumstances of this imprisonment, or rather custody. Of 
course, δεσμοί as the general term might also be used, and therefore 
the fact that it is used, Col. iv. 18, is no objection. 

ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ παρρησιάσωμαι. Co-ordinate with the preceding 
iva. Soden, however, takes the clause as depending on the 
πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλ., the meaning according to him being that St. Paul 


190 THE EPISTLE TO! THE EPHESIANS [VI. 21-24 


might have been set at liberty on condition that he did not preach 
the gospel, but remained in custody in hope that the result of the 
trial would be that he would be at liberty to preach. This, he adds, 
corresponds to ws det με λαλῆσαι, and escapes the tautology involved 
in the other interpretations. 

21-24. Personal commendation of Tychicus, who carries the 
letter, and final benediction. 

21. ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμεῖς. καί is probably simply “ye as well 
as others.” Meyer and others suppose a reference to the Epistle 
to the Colossians, “‘ ye as well as the Colossians”; cf. Col. iv. 7. But 
this seems forced, for this significance of καί could hardly occur to 
the readers. But it may mean, “although there are no personal 
relations between us.” Alford understands: ‘fas Z have been 
going at length into the matters concerning you, so if you also, on 
your part, wish,” etc. 

τὰ κατ᾽ ene = Col. iv. 7. 

πὶ πράσσω, nearer definition of τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, “how I do,” not 
“what I am doing,” which they knew was the one thing that 
always engaged his thoughts. 

Τύχικος 6 ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς Kal πιστὸς διάκονος. Tychicus is 
mentioned, Acts xx. 4, as accompanying St. Paul from Macedonia 
to Asia. His services as διάκονος are alluded to 2 Tim. iv. 12; 
Tit. iii. 12. It was only ἐν Κυρίῳ that he was Paul’s διάκονος. In 
Col. iv. 7 σύνδουλος is added. 

22. ὃν ἔπεμψα eis αὐτό τοῦτο (=Col. iv.), 2.6. for the very 
purpose now to be mentioned: ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν, «.7.A. = Col. 
iv. 8 (where, however, there is a difference of reading). 

28. Εἰρήνη tots ἀδελφοῖς, κιτιλ. A truly apostolic benediction 
as to substance, but differing in form from St. Paul’s final benedic- 
tions. First, it is in the third person, not the second, τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς 
instead of ὑμῖν, μετὰ πάντων τῶν ay. instead of μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. The 
whole form, too, is markedly general. This agrees well with the 
view that the Epistle was addressed to a circle of Churches. 
Secondly, the benediction is in two parts, not, as elsewhere, one ; 
and, thirdly, χάρις, which elsewhere comes first, here concludes, 
and εἰρήνη, elsewhere last, is here first. ‘These points all speak for 
the genuineness of the Epistle, and against the hypothesis of 
imitation. 

ἀγάπη μετὰ πίστεως. πίστις is presupposed, therefore it is not 
ἀγάπη καὶ 7. Love is the characteristic of a true faith. 


For ἀγάπη A has ἔλεος, suggested probably by recollection of 1 Tim. i. 13 
2am 1 te 


24. Ἢ χάρις μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἀγαπώντων τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν 
Χριστὸν ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ. 
ἀφθαρσία elsewhere means the incorruptibility of future im- 


VI. 24] CONCLUDING SALUTATION IQI 


mortality ; see, for example, Rom. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i.’ τὸ The 
adjective ἄφθαρτος has a corresponding meaning. God is ἄφθαρτος, 
Rom. i. 23; 1 Tim. i. 17; the dead are raised a@@apro, 1 Cor. 
xv. 52; the Christian’s crown is ἄφθαρτος. So 1 Pet. iii. 4, the 
ornament of women is to be ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τοῦ πραέος καὶ ἡσυχίου 
πνεύματος. ‘The word, then, does not point merely to time but to 
character, and that suits very well here as an attribute of love. It 
is more than “sincerity” (ἀφθορία, Tit. 11. 7); it is ‘imperish- 
ableness, incorruptibility.” It is a “spiritual, eternal love, and 
thus only is the word worthy to stand as the crown and 
climax of this glorious Epistle,” Alford. Some connect the word 
with χάρις. Soden defends the connexion on the following 
grounds: first, that if connected with ἀγαπώντων, ἐν ἀφθ. must 
express a character of the ἀγάπη, in which case ἀγαπᾶν ἐν ἀφθ. 
would be an unsuitable form of expression for ἀγαπᾶν ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
ἀφθάρτῳ ; and, secondly, that ἀφθαρσία almost always contains a 
point of contrast with the transitory nature which belongs to the 
creature in this world; it belongs to the sphere of heavenly exist- 
ence, serving to designate eternal life as the highest blessing of 
salvation ; and this is the gift of χάρις, which culminates in the 
bestowal of it. Bengel, who connects 46. with χάρις, remarks, 
however, well: ‘Congruit cum tota summa epistolae: et inde 
redundat etiam ἀφθαρσίαά in amorem fidelium erga Jesum 
Christum.” The writer, in fact, returns to the fundamental 
thought of 1. 3-14. 

There is no analogy for the connexion with τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν, 
adopted by some expositors. 


᾿Αμήν is added in δὲ Ὁ K LP most mss., Amiat.** Syr. (both) Boh., not 
in 8* ABG 17, Arm. Amiat.* 


7 «| 
ae 
a 

d? 

᾿ 

Ν j 













nge.2 
@ Ve 7 
i 
r 
cw! 
mee) 
ΔΝ 
‘ i " 
χε νι 
᾿ 
go 
5- ὡς, ᾿ ‘ong y Aa Ὶ ᾿ 
ni ce ΩΣ a) ᾿ 
‘an 
a nL +), ual 
ἢ ᾿ Ἢ 
os 
. 4 Σ 
uve 
i mare 
᾿ ῖ ar ar 
τι 
i ὔ 
ἔ nate 
‘tars 
¥ ᾿ ΜΝ 





THE 


Peto lin ΟΕ COLOSSEANS: 


τις 


ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ. 


The spelling of the name is uncertain. In the title the spelling ΚΚολοσσαεις 
is given by αὶ B°DGL 17 (KoNooaes), while A B* K P have Κολασσαεις, 
which δὲ also has twice at the top of the page, and so G once (once also 
Kodogoaers). In the subscription § A B* C K 17 agree in Κολασσαεις, while 
ΒΡ GLP have Κολοσσαεις. 

In ver. 28 BD GL have Κοόλοσσαις, K P 17, αἰ. Κολασσαις (A 1021 léguet). 

The versions also vary. Syr. (both) have a, with Boh., but Vulg. and 
Arm. o. 

Coins give the spelling with 0, and for the name of the people Κολοσηνων 
or Κολοσσηνων. But the form with a appears in Polyaenus and in some 
MSS. of Herodotus and Xenophon. The latter may have been a provincial 
pronunciation and spelling. WH. and Lightfoot adopt a in the title, o in 
ver. 2; Tregelles has a in both places, as well as in the subscription (which 
WH. omit). Tischendorf preserves the correct spelling with 0, remarking, 
“‘videtur Κολασσαι scriptura sensim in usum abisse. At inde non sequitur 
iam Paulum ita scripsisse.” As the heading did not proceed from the pen of 
St. Paul, this conclusion agrees practically with that of WH. and Lightfoot as 
to the spelling here. 


I. 1. SALUTATION. Παῦλος ἀπόστολος, κιτιλ. See Eph. 1. 1. 

kat Τιμόθεος. Timothy’s name is joined with that of Paul 
also in 2 Cor. Phil. 1 Thess. 2 Thess. Philemon. In Phil. and 
Philemon, however, the apostle proceeds in the singular, whereas 
here the plural is maintained throughout the thanksgiving. 

ὃ ἀδελφός. This does not imply any official position (οὐκοῦν 
καὶ ἀπόστολος, Chrys.); it is the simplest title that could be 
employed to express Christian brotherhood. So it is used of 
Quartus, Rom. xvi. 23; of Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1; and of Apollos, 
1 Cor. xvi. 12; and of an unnamed brother, 2 Cor. vii. 18, xi. 18. 
Compare 2 Cor./ix: 2; 5. 

2. τοῖς ἐν K. ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. ἁγίοις, as in all similar 
salutations, must be taken as a substantive. De Wette, however, 

13 


194 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 3 


and apparently Syr. and Vulg., connect it as an adjective with 
ἀδελφοῖς. πιστοῖς is more than “believing,” which would add 
nothing to ἁγίοις and ἀδελφοῖς. It is “true, steadfast.” Cf. Acts 
ΧΥ͂Ι. 15. 

ἐν Xptot@. Closely connected with πιστοῖς ἀδ., but refers 
chiefly to πιστοῖς. Cf. πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν Κυρίῳ, Eph. vi. 21. Only 
in Christ weve they “faithful brethren ” ; the article, therefore, is not 
required. év Xp. might, indeed, have been dispensed with; but it 
suits the formality of the introductory greeting. 


After ἐν Χριστῷ, Ἰησοῦ is added in A D* G 17, Vulg. Boh., not in δὲ Β Ὁ) 
K LP, Syr-Harcl. Arm. etc. (Syr-Pesh. has Ἰησοῦ before Χριστῷ). 


It is remarkable that St. Paul’s earlier Epistles are addressed 
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, Tats ἐκκλησίαις ; whereas here, as in Rom. and Eph., 
the address is to the saints and brethren. This can hardly be 
accidental. It certainly gives the address a more personal and 
less official aspect, and may have been adopted because the 
apostle had no personal relations with the heads of these Churches, 
to which he was personally unknown. It has been objected to 
this, that in iv. 16 the Church of the Laodiceans is mentioned ; 
and, again, that the Epistle to the Philippians, to whom St. Paul 
was personally known, is similarly addressed. As to the former 
objection, it may be fairly replied that to speak of his Epistle 
being read in the Church is very different from addressing it to the 
Church ; and as to the second, although the word ἐκκλησία is not 
used in the address to the Phil., we have what may be regarded as 
an equivalent, σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις. It is hardly satisfactory 
to say that the disuse of ἐκκλησία in the address is characteristic of 
the later Epistles; for, first, this is not an explanation; and, 
secondly, the word is used in Philemon, τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ. 

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν -- Eph. i. 2, where 
there follows καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 


These words are added here also in ἃ ACG and most MSS. Boh. 
Arm., also P in a different order, “Inco Xp. τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. The words 
are absent from BD K L 17, a/. Amiat. Fuld. Syr-Pesh. (text), Origen and 
Chrysostom both expressly attest the absence of the words. The latter, after 
quoting the preceding words, observes: τὸν υἱὸν ἐσίγησεν καὶ οὐ προσέθηκεν 
ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς" καὶ Kuplov Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The addition has 
plainly come in by assimilation to Eph. 


3-8. Thanksgiving for their faith and love, passing on into the 
assurance that the gospel they were taught by Epaphras was the true 
universal gospel, which proved its genuineness by the fruit tt produced, 
both among them and in all the world. 

3. εὐχαριστοῦμεν. In all St. Paul’s Epistles to Churches, with 
the exception of that to the Galatians, the Salutation is followed by 
thanksgiving. In Eph. as in 2 Cor, this is in the form εὐλογητὸς 6 


I. 4, 5] THANKSGIVING 195 


Θεός, elsewhere in some form of εὐχαριστῶς On the verb, see 
Eph. 15 15. 

τῷ Θεῷ πατρί. We have the same form of words in iii. 15; 
elsewhere, however, always ὃ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ. 

Here also καί is inserted by § AC? D°K LP, and apparently all other 
mss. except those mentioned below ; Vulg. Arm. Theodoret, ad. 

It is wanting in BC* D*G, Chrys. (D* G Chrys. have τῷ πατρί). Old 
Latin, Syr. (both) Boh. Eth. 

Tisch. 8th ed. (in deference to §&), restores καί, which he had omitted in 
7th ed. (WH. and RV. omit). Lachm. also omits, but reads τῷ with D* 
FG. Meyer thinks καί was omitted in a mechanical way after the preceding 
Θεοῦ πατρός. 

It is observable that in 111. 17, δξ A agree with BC in omitting καί, while 
D FG, with K L and nearly all others, as well as Syr-Pesh., insert it. The 
evidence for the omission there is decidedly preponderant. It is less so here, 
yet perhaps decisive enough when we consider how certainly the scribes 
would stumble at the unusual form. The reading τῷ πατρί appears to be 
another attempt to get rid of it. Compare i, 12 below, where δὲ 37, with 
other authorities, have Θεῷ before πατρί. 

εὐχαριστοῦμεν . . . πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι. It is 
questioned whether πάντοτε is to be joined with εὐχαριστοῦμεν or 
with προσευχ. The latter connexion is adopted by the Greek 
commentators, also by Bengel, Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott, εἰς. 
But Eph. i. 16 is almost decisive for the other connexion, οὐ 
παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν 
προσευχῶν μου. Compare Pe @or, 1: 1 ΤΠ ἴα: 1: προσευχ. 15, 
in fact, a nearer definition of πάντοτε. ‘‘ We give thanks on your 
account always in our prayers,” or (as Meyer), ‘always when we 
pray for you.” “Always praying for you” would require the 
addition of words specifying the object of the prayer. 

The reading varies between περί and ὑπέρ. The latter is read by BD*G 
17, a/., but AC D°J K, with most mss., have περί. ὑπέρ would readily be 
introduced from ver. 9, where there is no variant. 

4. ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Assigns the 
ground of his thanksgiving. He had heard from Epaphras, ver. 8. 
The addition of ἐν Xp. “Ino. as a more precise definition of πίστις, 
which of itself expresses only a psychological conception, is quite 
natural here, where St. Paul is addressing for the first time those 
who were unknown to him. So in Eph.i.15. In Rom.i. 8 the 
specification of πίστις had preceded vv. 2, 3. The article is un- 
necessary, as πίστις ἐν Xp. is one notion. See Eph. Ze. 

καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχετε εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους. 

ἣν ἔχετε is read in NACD*GP 17 37 47, αἰ. Old Latin, Vulg. Boh. 
Syr-Harcl. Arm. But D°K Land most mss. Chrys. Theod. Syr-Pesh. have 
τὴν ἀγάπην Thy els, while B has τὴν ἀγάπην eis. The reading with ἣν ἔχετε 
might be a conformation to Philem. 5, while τὴν ἀγάπην τήν might be a con- 
formation to Eph. i. 15. 


5. διὰ τὴν ἐλπίδας. The Greek comm. and most moderns 


196 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 5 


connect this with the words immediately preceding, “the love 
which ye have to all the saints.” ἀγαπᾶτέ, φησι, τοὺς ἁγίους οὐ 
διά τι ἀνθρώπινον ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ἐλπίζειν τὰ μέλλοντα ἀγαθά, Theoph. 
The reasons alleged are—(1) the remoteness of εὐχαριστοῦμεν ; (2) 
the following clause, ἣν προηκούσατε, suggests that the words διὰ 
τῆν ἐλπίδα describe the motives of the Colossians for welldoing, 
rather than the reasons of the apostle for thanksgiving; (3) in 
other Epistles the ground of thanksgiving is the spiritual state of 
the persons addressed ; (4) εὐχαριστεῖν is never used with διά in 
the N.T.; and (5) the connexion with εὐχ. would break up the 
triad of graces which St. Paul delights in associating together. (So 
Meyer, Soden, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot.) (1), (2), (5) are con- 
sidered by Lightfoot decisive. Yet surely there is something 
strange in assigning the future hope as the motive of Christian 
love. As Eadie observes, if the apostle had said that they loved 
one another because of the common hope which they had in 
heaven, or that this prospect of a joint inheritance deepened their 
attachments, the meaning might have been easily apprehended ; 
but why the hope in itself should be selected as the prop of such 
love, we know not. Of all the graces, love has the least of self in 
its nature. Such passages as 2 Cor. ix. 6, Gal. vi. gf. are not 
analogous ; for what creates a difficulty is not the mention of 
expected reward as a motive for action, but as a motive for love. 
As ἐλπίς here is not the grace of hope, but the object (τὴν ἀποκει- 
μένην), reason (5) loses its force; as ἐλπίς does not mean the same 
thing as in 1 Thess. i. 3, for example, it is quite natural that it 
should fall into a different connexion. Nor does there seem to be 
much weight in the second reason. ‘The words ἣν προηκούσατε, 
k.7.4., involve an appeal to the first teaching they had received, 
which was sound and full. This goes very well with εὐχαριστοῦμεν ; 
but if the hope were described as the motive of their love, what 
appropriateness would there be in referring to their former instruc- 
tion in it? As to (3) and (4), the clause ἀκούσαντες does imply 
that the ground of his thanksgiving was their faith and love; but 
it is consistent with this that what prompted him to feel thankful 
for these graces was the thought of the hope laid up for them, and 
hence with this connexion διά is not only admissible, but is alone 
suitable. The signification of εὐχαριστεῖν ὑπέρ (1 Cor. x. 30; Eph. 
v. 20) is not that required here. There is good reason, then, for 
Bengel’s interpretation: ‘‘ex spe patet, quanta sit causa gratias 
agendi pro dono fidei et amoris.” If ἣν ἔχετε be omitted the con- 
nexion with ἀγάπην is grammatically harsh. 

Estius, De Wette, Olshausen, and others connect διὰ τὴν ἐλπ. 
with both πίστιν and ἀγάπην. This connexion is certainly awkward, 
and the sentiment not Pauline. Theodore Mops. connects the 
words with προσευχόμενοι. 


1. 6] THANKSGIVING 197 


ἐλπίς is clearly objective, as in Rom. viii. 24; Gal. v. 5. 

τὴν ἀποκειμένην. The thought of the “hope,” ze. the bless- 
ing hoped for, being already prepared is not expressed in this 
form by St. Paul elsewhere, except perhaps 1 Tim. vi. 19, but is 
clearly put in τ Pet. 1. 4, κληρονομίαν. . . τετηρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς. 
In substance it is involved in Phil. iii. 20, and, indeed, in Matt. 
Vi. 20. 

ἣν προηκούσατε. The zpo- has reference, according to Meyer, 
to the future fulfilment. Bengel understands it simply as “ ante- 
quam scriberem,” but the context rather suggests that the 
reference is to their early teaching in contrast to the later errors. 
The apostle now is not teaching them anything new, but desires 
to confirm them in the true doctrine which they had already learned. 
Compare vv. 7, 23 and v. 6. Hence also the mention of the truth 
of the gospel in the following words :— 

ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. That εὐαγγελίου is the 
principal notion here is shown by the participle παρόντος, which 
agrees with it, and not with ἀληθείας. And this is confirmed by 
the connexion of ἐλπίς and εὐαγγέλιον in ver. 23. The genitive 
ἀληθείας then qualifies λόγος, and this compound notion is 
explained by etayy. ἡ aA. τοῦ etayy., Gal. 11. 5, 14, is not exactly 
parallel, because there the formula has a direct polemical purpose. 
Here the point is that ὃ λόγος τοῦ εὐαγγ. is a λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας in 
opposition to those false teachers who would fain complete it by 
their παραδόσεις, 11. 8, which were κενὴ ἀπάτη. 

6. τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμᾶς. A quite classical use of παρεῖναι as 
implying “has come and remains.” οὐ παρεγένετο καὶ ἀπέστη, add’ 
ἔμεινε καὶ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ, Chrys.; cf. Acts xii. 20. It needs, then, no 
further addition. 

καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ TO κόσμῳ ἐστὶν καρποφορούμενον. παντὶ τῷ 
κόσμῳ here is not an insignificant hyperbole, but intimates the 
catholicity of the true gospel in opposition to the merely local 
character of false gospels ; compare ver. 23. 

Tischendorf, ed. 8, places a comma after ἐστ. This con- 
struction escapes the irregular:ty involved in the doubling back 
of the c mparison by the second καθώς. The comparison then 
may be either as to the mere fact of the presence of the gospel, so 
that ἐστίν = “exists,” or as to the contents of it, which agrees. 
better with the designation of the gospel as λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας. 
The readers then are assured that the gospel which has come to 
and remains with them is the same as in the whole world; they 
need have no fear that it was imperfect; it is the false teachers 
that are not in agreement with the universal gospel. So Soden. 
But most comm. connect ἐστί with καρποφορούμενον καὶ avé. 


καί is prefixed to ἐστίν in D’’GKL, etc. Old Lat. Vulg. Syr. (both) 
Chrys. 


198 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 6 


It is absent from ἃ ABC D* 17, αἴ. Boh. Arm. Eth. The evidence 
against it, therefore, is quite decisive. It was doubtless added to simplify 
the construction, and is defended on the ground of this simplicity by Ols- 
hausen and Eadie. Ellicott, who had previously hesitated, thinking that it 
might have been omitted to modify the hyperbole, omitted the word in his 
5th ed. 


καρποφορούμενον. The middle voice is not elsewhere found ; 
its force here is probably intensive, denoting the inherent energy, 
while the active (which is used below, ver. 10) would rather denote 
external diffusion (Lightfoot). Verbs like σιδηροφορεῖσθαι, τυμπανο- 
φορεῖσθαι are not parallel, since in them φορεῖσθαι means “ to 
wear.” 

Those comm. who connect ἐστίν with the participles explain 
this periphrastic present as expressing continuity of action, as in 
2 Cor. ix. 12, οὐ μόνον ἐστὶν προσαναπληροῦσα, x«.t.A., and Phil. 
li. 26, ἐπιποθῶν ἣν. 

kat αὐξανόμενον rests on preponderant evidence, 8 A BC D* 
GI, Vss. Rec. omits, with D” K, etc. 

αὐξανόμενον doubtless refers to the outward expansion, as καρποφ. 
to the personal, inner working. ‘The gospel is not like those 
plants which exhaust themselves in bearing fruit and wither away. 
The external growth keeps pace with the reproductive energy,” 
Lightfoot. Observe the order ; first the preservation of the gospel 
amongst those who received it, and after that its extension to 
new circles. Both are to the Colossians a proof of its truth and 
sufficiency. 

καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, so that they did not come behind their 
brethren in this respect. 

If we connect the participles with ἐστίν, the comparison is 
very curiously doubled back on itself. Moreover, as Olshausen 
observes (defending the addition of καί after κόσμῳ), the words 
καθὼς καὶ ev ὑμῖν do not fit the beginning of the proposition, καθὼς 
καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, since the Colossians are, of course, included 
with the rest in the whole world. Lightfoot explains the irregu- 
larity thus: ‘The clause reciprocating the comparison is an after- 
thought springing out of the apostle’s anxiety not to withhold 
praise where praise can be given,” and he compares t Thess. iv. 1 
(not Rec. ) παρακαλοῦμεν ἐ ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἸΙησοῦ ἵ ἵνα, καθὼς παρελάβετε παρ᾽ 

ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ περιπα- 
τεῖτε, ἵνα περισσεύητε μᾶλλον. But that passage is not really 
parallel 3 for καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε is entirely distinct from καθὼς 
παρελάβετε, and is a courteous admission that they were actually 
walking as they had been taught. Here there is nothing of the 
kind, and the difficulty (apart from that mentioned by Olshausen) 
is that we have the mere repetition, “in you as also in all the 
world, as also in you.” ‘The difficulty, of course, disappears in the 


1: ἢ] THANKSGIVING 199 


Ree Text with the insertion of καί; or, since we are compelled to 
omit καί, with the adoption of the construction above referred to, 
as then the comparison in καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν is with καρποφ. 
καὶ avé, 

ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας, κιτλ. To be closely joined with καθὼς καὶ ἐν 
ὑμῖν; the fruitfulness and growth began at once, so that it was 
independent of these later παραδόσεις. 

ἠκούσατε kal ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν. There is no occasion to regard 
τὴν χάριν as the object of the latter verb only (as Meyer, Alford, 
I:llicott, Eadie understanding “it,” z.e. the gospel, as the object of 
ἠκούσατε). χάρις was the content of the gospel message, which is 
called τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ (Acts xx. 24), and as such 
may be said to be heard. We can hardly, indeed, say, with Light- 
foot, that St. Paul uses χάρις as a “synonyme for the gospel,” of 

,which use he gives as instances 2 Cor. vi. 1, Vill. 9, γινώσκετε 
τὴν χάριν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι δι ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχευσε 
πλούσιος ὦν. Here the word suggests a contrast with the false 
gospel, which was one of δόγματα (11. 14). Compare Gal. 11. 21, οὐκ 
ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

ἐπέγνωτε implies not so much developed knowledge as active 
conscious recognition, or taking knowledge of; cf. Acts iii. 10, 
ἵ τι} ὙΧΙΠ 245.20, -XXVil,. 30, ἸΣΧΎΝ: τ Ὁ Cor sxav.)/37 3.2, Cor 
1. 14 (ἐπέγνωτε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ μέρους). 

ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. Even although the gospel was itself λόγος τῆς 
ἀληθείας, there was the possibility that as known by them it was 
imperfect ; hence this is added to guard them against the error of 
the false teachers, who insisted on supplementing it by their philo- 
sophy (ii. 8, 28). 

7. καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ. This gives them a further 
assurance as to the source of their Christianity ; the apostle gives 
his seal to the teaching of Epaphras, which conveyed the full 
gospel of the grace of God, so that having received this in truth as 
they did, they had no need to listen to strange teachers. 

Epaphras appears from iv. 12 to have been a Colossian ; either 
a native, or now reckoned as an inhabitant of Colossae. From the 
present passage we gather that he was the founder of the Church 
there (compare the καθώς and ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας.) He was at this time 
a fellow-prisoner of St. Paul (Philemon 23): or perhaps συναιχμά- 
Awtos there only means that he was so constantly with St. Paul as 
practically to share his captivity. As the name isa shortened form 
of Epaphroditus, it was natural to conjecture that the Epaphroditus 

“ of Phil. 11. 25 was the same person. But the names were common, 
occurring frequently in inscriptions ; and as Epaphroditus appears 
to be in close connexion with the Philippians (whose ἀπόστολος he 
was), there is no sufficient ground for the identification. 

τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν. So Tychicus (iv. 7) is called 


200 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. fi 


σύνδουλος, the servitude being, of course, to Christ. This designa- 
tion appears intended to command high respect for Epaphras, who 
is thus placed as near as possible to the apostle. 

Os ἐστι πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. See note on the 
reading. ‘The reading ἡμῶν makes Epaphras a representative of 
St. Paul in preaching the gospel at Colossae ; probably at the time 
when the apostle was dwelling for two years at Ephesus, at which 
time “all that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus ” 
(Acts xix. 10). This would explain the attitude of authority which 
St. Paul assumes in this Epistle towards a Church which he had 
not himself seen. 

διάκονος has clearly its general meaning “ minister,” not the 
special sense “ deacon,” as the genitive τοῦ Χριστοῦ shows. ‘This 
designation of him as πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, x.7.A., serves still further to 
confirm the confidence of the Colossians in their first teacher. If 
ὑμῶν is read, ὑπέρ ὑμῶν would mean “for your benefit,” not 
“instead of you,” for there is no personal reference here, as in 
Philemon 13, Wa ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ. ‘The genitive rod Χριστοῦ 
is, indeed, decisive of this, for this implies that his ministry was 
one of spiritual benefit, which would not be suitable to a messenger 
from the Colossians to St. Paul. 


There are two rather important varieties of reading in ver. 7. The Rec. 
Text has καί after καθώς on comparatively weak authority, viz. D° 3747 ΚΙ, 
Syr-Harcl. Arm., against SABCD*G17P Vulg. Syr. Pesh. and other 
Vers. καί was doubtless added from assimilation to the two preceding 
καθὼς καί. καθὼς ἐμάθετε without καί can only mean that Epaphras was their 
first teacher. 

The other important variation is between ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν and ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, and 
with respect to this there is a remarkable conflict between MSS. and versions, 
ἡμῶν is read by S*ABD*G. 

Ambrosiaster (Comm. ‘‘ qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi vice Apostoli”), 

ὑμῶν by δῶ Ο De K L P and most MSS. 

The versions, however, are nearly all on the side of ὑμῶν, Vulg. Syr. 
(both) Boh. Arm. Eth. Goth. Chrys. also interprets ὑμῶν. The other 
Greek comm. are silent as to the word in their comments, and the reading in 
their texts, which is ὑμῶν, may be due to editors. Of the old Latin, d (and e) 
with f have ‘‘ vobis ” (against the Greek D F), while g has ‘‘ nobis ” (agree- 
ing with Ὁ). 

Internal evidence favours ἡμῶν. First, ‘‘ for your benefit ” would hardly 
be expressed by ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, but either by ὑμῶν, cf. διάκονον περιτομῆς, Rom. 
xv. 8, or ὑμῖν, asin I Pet. i. 12. The form of expression does not indicate 
that any emphasis on ‘‘ for your benefit ” is intended, as if the apostle meant 
to impress on the Col. that whatever Epaphras had done was for their good. 
Secondly, it is easy to understand how ὑμῶν might be substituted for ἡμῶν, 
partly on account of the recurrence of ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in the neighbouring context 
(vv. 3, 9) and in connexion with this, from the significance of ἡμῶν not being 
understood. The two words being pronounced alike, these circumstances 
would naturally lead to ὑμῶν being written by mistake in the first instance, and 
the second to its preference when both readings were deliberately compared. 
On the other hand, Meyer thinks that ἡμῶν is due to the influence of the 
preceding ἡμῶν and the following ἡμῶν. Editors differ in their judgment ; 


Ι. 8, 9] PRAYER FOR THE READERS 201 


Lachm. Treg. WH. Lightfoot, RV. Barry, Moule adopt ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν being 
given a place in the margin by WH. RV. 

On the other hand, Tisch. Meyer, Ell. Eadie, Soden prefer ὑμῶν. Eadie 
in support of this points out that ἡμῶν would include Timothy. But there is 
no reason why Timothy should be so pointedly excluded, as would have been 
the case had ἐμοῦ been used, any more than with συνδούλου and δηλώσας. 


8. ὁ καὶ δηλώσας ἡμῖν Thy ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι, viz. their 
love to St. Paul in particular. This appears clear from ἡμῖν τὴν 
ὑμῶν, as well as from the subsequent διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς. The 
words may be regarded as a courteous justification of the didactic 
tone which the apostle adopts, and perhaps also as an indication 
that Epaphras had not made any complaint of the Colossians. 
Meyer (reading ὑμῶν) understands love to Epaphras ; Ellicott, 
brotherly love. 

ἐν πνεύματι expresses the ground of their love, which was not 
individual sympathy, personal acquaintance, or the like, but 
belonged to the sphere of the Holy Spirit’s influence. It was οὐ 
σαρκική, ἀλλὰ πνευματική, Oecum. Compare ὅσοι οὐχ ἑωράκασι τὸ 
πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί (ii. 7). 

9-12. Prayer for their advancement in spiritual knowledge, not 
speculative, but practical. 

9. Διὰ τοῦτος On account, namely, of all that has preceded 
from ver. 4 ; cf. 1 Thess. ii. 4. Chrys. strikingly observes : καθάπερ 
ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσιν ἐκείνους μάλιστα διεγείρομεν τοὺς ἐγγὺς ὄντας τῆς 
νικῆς᾽ οὕτω δὴ καὶ 6 Παῦλος τούτους μάλιστα παρακαλεῖ τοὺς τὸ 
πλέον κατωρθωκότας. Cf. Eph. i. 15. καὶ ἡμεῖς, “we also,” by 
its position emphasises the transition from the conduct of the 
Colossians to its effect on the apostle and his friends. 

ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν echoes the similar expression in ver. 6. 
So the apostle’s prayer was, as it were, an echo of their faith. 
An encouragement to them to proceed as they had begun. 

οὐ πανόμεθα προσευχόμενοι. Cf. Eph. i. 16. Called by Ellicott 
an “affectionate hyperbole” ; yet it is hardly to be called a hyper- 
bole, for it would at no moment be true to say that he had ceased 
to pray for them. It is not asserted that the expression of the 
prayer was uninterrupted. As they did not cease to grow and 
bear fruit, so he did not cease to pray. Cf. Acts v. 42, οὐκ 
ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες, «.7.A., and contra, Acts xiii. 10, οὐ παύσῃ 
διαστρέφων, and 1 Sam. xii. 23. καὶ αἰτούμενοι, κιτ.λ., adds the 
special request to the more general προσευχόμενοι. Compare Mk. 
Xl. 24, ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε. 

ἵνα after words like θέλειν, αἰτεῖσθαι, signifies merely the purport 
of the wish or prayer; cf. Phil. i. 9, where τοῦτο as object of 
προσεύχομαι is explained by ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν. For the 
accusative, compare Phil. 1. 11, πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης, 
“that ye may be perfected in,” Oltramare. ἐπίγνωσιν, stronger 


202 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 9 


than γνῶσις : see 1 Cor. xiii. 12. The difference, however, seems 
to be rather that the former word implies a more active exercise of 
a faculty, and hence lends itself better to the expression of practical 
knowledge. This distinction agrees well with Rom. i. 21; 28. 
Compare on the verb, ver. 6. Lightfoot remarks that é ἐπίγνωσις 
is a favourite word in the later Epistles of St. Paul; but, in fact, 
although it occurs four times in this Epistle and twice in Eph., 

it is used only once in Phil. (i. 9), whereas it is thrice used in 
Rom. In the later Epistles, however, it is always used in refer- 
ence to spiritual knowledge. See Trench, Syz. Ixxv. 

τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ. The following context, vy. 10-12, shows 
that what is meant is the Divine will as to their conduct, as in 
iv. 12; 1 Thess. iv. 3, v.18; Rom. xii. 2; not the χάρις mentioned 
as the object of their knowledge in ver. 6 (διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ προσάγεσθαι 
ἡμᾶς αὐτῷ, οὐκέτι Ov ἀγγέλων, Chrys. etc.). The knowledge which 
is here meant is, in fact, the consequence of that which is there 
attributed to them. Knowing the χάρις, they should know also 
that what God required of them was nothing but conduct corre- 
sponding thereto. This in opposition to the false teachers and the 
doctrines of their φιλοσοφία. 

ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει πνευματικῇ. “In all spiritual wisdom 
and understanding,” ἐν introducing the manner in which the 
πληρωθῆναι is carried out, and πάσῃ and πνευματικῇ being taken 
with both substantives. ‘To connect πν. with συνέσει alone would 
be to give the inappropriate meaning, “wisdom of all kinds and 
spiritual understanding.” 

On σοφία see Eph. i. 8, where the words are ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ 
φρονήσει. These three, ἐσφία, φρόνησις, σύνεσις, are reckoned by 
Aristotle as the three intellectual ἀρεταί or excellences (Z7¢h. JV. 
i. 13), the first being the most general and thorough, embracing 
the knowledge of first principles as well as that of particulars ; 
while he distinguishes φρόνησις as the practical knowledge of Ῥατ- 
ticulars from σύνεσις, which is critical; ἡ φρόνησις ἐπιτακτική ἐστιν 

ἡ δὲ σύνεσις «κριτική (Σὰ. LV. vi. 7: 11). Demosth. (269. 24) 
defines σύνεσις, 7) τὰ καλὰ Kal αἰσχρὰ διαγνώσκεται, which agrees 
with Aristotle’s κριτική. It would appear, therefore, that σύνεσις 
was the faculty of deciding what was right or wrong in particular 
cases, while σοφία apprehended the general principles. But 
σύνεσις is used by St. Paul in a more general sense; see Eph. 
il. 43 Cf. Luke 11. 47. The two words frequently occur together 
in the O.T., eg. Ex, xxxi. 3; Isa. xxix, τῇ; ΠἸΘΟΙΕΞΙ ΣΙ cor 
(τ Cor. i. 19 is a quotation), and the corresponding adjectives in 
Matt. xi. 25. 

πνευματικῇ, given by the Spirit. Compare 1 Cor. xii. 8, ᾧ 
μὲν διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος δίδοται λόγος σοφίας. 

The word is emphatic in this position, marking the contrast 


I. 10] PRAYER FOR THE READERS 203 


with the false teaching, which had λόγον σοφίας, a pretence of 
wisdom (ii. 23) which really proceeded from ὃ νοῦς τῆς σαρκός 
(ii. 18). We have the apostle’s σοφία σαρκική, 2 Cor. 1. 12; ἀνθρωπίνη, 
I Cor. il. 5, 133 Tov Kéapov τούτου; 1 Cor. ii. 6, etc. 

10. περιπατῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἀξίως τοῦ Κυρίου. A similar expression 
occurs I Thess. il. 12, ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ : and Eph. iv. 1, τῆς κλήσεως, 
“in a manner worthy of,” z.e. befitting your connexion with Him. 
The infinitive expresses the consequence (and proof) of πληρωθῆναι, 
ἀεὶ τῇ πίστει συζεύγνυσι THY πολιτείαν, Chrys. 

If ὑμᾶς after περιπατῆσαι were genuine (Text. Rec.), the infinitive might 
conceivably be regarded as dependent on προσευχόμενοι ; but it is certainly 
spurious, being omitted by §* ABC D*G 17, a/. Clem., Boh. It is added 
in 8° D°K LP, most mss. Chrys. Theodoret, Arm. 

εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρεσκείαν. 116. “so as to please God in every way.” 
Compare 1 Thess. iv. 5, πῶς det ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Oecd. 
In classical authors ἀρεσκεία has generally an unfavourable sense, 
“‘obsequiousness,” and it is so defined both in £¢h. Eudem. (τὸ 
λίαν πρὸς ἡδονήν, 11. 3) and by Theophrastus (Char. 5). Polybius 
uses it especially of trying to gain the favour of a sovereign. 
Similarly Philo, πάντα καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν ἐσπούδαζεν εἰς ἀρεσκείαν 
τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ βασιλέως (i. p. 34), but he also uses it of pleasing 
God. The ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν is disavowed by the apostle in Gal. 
i wo; Uhess, 1.-4--compate ch. m1. 22, The verb is used, how: 
ever, without any unfavourable connotation, in Rom. xv. 2 (τῷ 
πλησίον ἀρεσκέτω) and elsewhere. 

ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ qualifies the following, as ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει 
qualifies the following participle. Most commentators separate 
καρποφοροῦντες and αὐξανόμενοι ; but then αὐξ. τῇ ἐπιγνώσει becomes 
tautologous with πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν, ver. 9. Moreover, the 
combination καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξ. in ver. 6 seems to require 
that the two participles here also should be taken together. What 
is true of the gospel in the world and amongst the Colossians is 
also to hold good of those whose lives are inspired by its teaching. 
The participles refer to the logical subject of περιπατῆσαι, not to 
πληρωθῆτε (Beza, Bengel). Cf. Eph. iv. 2. τῇ ἐπίγνωσε ιτοῦ Θεοῦ, 
“by the knowledge of God,” instrumental dative, a frequent use of 
the dative with αὐξαν. (So Alford, Eadie, Ellicott, Lightfoot, 
Soden, RV.mg.) The fruitfulness and growth are wrought through 
the ἐπίγνωσις τοῦ Θεοῦ, and this again results from the practice of 
his will, ver. 9. 

Some commentators take the dative as one of reference, as in 
Rom. iv. 20 (?), “increasing in the knowledge of God” (Moule, 
RV. text), which, after πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπιγν., ver. 9, would be 
somewhat of a tautology. 


τῇ ἐπιγνώσει is the reading of αὶ ABC D*GP 17, α΄. Amiat. Arm. ai. 
ἐν is prefixed in N° 47, and a few others, Chrys. Old Lat. and Vulg-Clem. 


204 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 11 


have ‘‘in scientia Dei,” which is doubtful. Text. Rec. has εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν, 
with D° Καὶ L most mss., Theodoret, Theoph. Oec. This appears to be an 
attempt to simplify the construction. Meyer, on the contrary, eae the 
dative as an explanation of the more difficult (Ὁ) εἰς τὴν ἐπ., which, he thinks, 
is also confirmed by the parallelism in structure of the other participial clauses, 
which conclude with a definition introduced by εἰς. He understands it as ‘‘in 
respect of,” that is, always more fully attaining to a knowledge of God, els 
indicating the final reference, or direction of the growth, comparing Eph. 
iv. 15 and 2 Pet. i. 8. As to the comparative difficulty of the readings, 
Alford’s judgment, that the simple dative ‘‘is by far the most difficult of the 
three readings,” is surely more correct than Meyer’s. εἰς τὴν ἐπίγν. would, 
in fact, present no difficulty to the ordinary reader. 

11. ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει δυναμούμενοι. ‘Theodoret takes this ἐν as 
instrumental, τῇ θείᾳ ῥοπῇ κρατυνόμενοι, and so Eadie, Ellicott, and 
Meyer. “Strengthened with all (every form of) strength,” Ell. (a 
translation which is itself ambiguous). 

It is simpler and more natural to understand ἐν π. 6. as “in 
(1.6. in the matter of) all strength” (Alford, Lightfoot). It thus 
corresponds with ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ and ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ, which are both 
subjective. δυναμούμενοι, present, “ becoming strengthened.” The 
simple verb is not used elsewhere by St. Paul, who, however, 
employs ἐνδυναμοῦσθαι several times. But δυναμοῦσθαι is in Heb. 
xi. 34, and B has it in Eph. vi. τὸ. It is frequently used by the 
Greek translators of the O.T., but 1s not a classical word. ‘The 
connected virtues here, ὑπομονή and μακροθυμία, indicate that what 
is referred to in this clause is steadfastness under trial, as the former 
referred to active conduct. 

κατὰ τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. “ According to the might of 
His glory.” Strength is supplied in a manner correspondent with 
the power which belongs to the glory of God, ze. His majesty as 
manifested to men. Compare Eph. i. τὸ. The rendering of AV. 
(Beza, etc.), ‘ His glorious power,” is sufficiently refuted by αὐτοῦ. 
Thomas Aquinas understands by ‘His glory,” ‘His Son Christ 
Jesus.” But although the Son may be called ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης 
αὐτοῦ, it would not be intelligible to use ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ as a sub- 
stitute for His name. Lightfoot remarks that κράτος in N.T. 1 
‘applied solely to God”; but see Heb. il. 14, τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα 
τοῦ θανάτου, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸν διάβολον. 

εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροθυμίαν. ‘To all endurance and 
longsuffering.” “‘ Patience” is a very inadequate rendering of 
ὑπομονή, Which includes perseverance or steadfast continuance in a 
course of action. ‘Thus we have καρποφοροῦσιν ἐν ὑπομονῇ, Luke 
Vili. 15; ὑπομονὴ ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ, Rom. 11. 7 ; δι ὑπομονῆς τρέχωμεν, 
Heb. xii. 1. Even the ὑπομονή of Job, to which James refers, was 
by no means the uncomplaining endurance of suffering to which 
we give the name of “patience.” Job was, in fact, the very 
reverse of “patient”; but he maintained his faith in God and his 
uprightness in spite of his sore trials. μακροθυμία comes much 


I. 11] PRAYER FOR THE READERS 205 


nearer to our notion of “ patience ” (cf. τ Cor. xiii. 4) ; not so much, 
however, patience under suffering, but ‘the self-restraint which 
does not hastily retaliate a wrong.” It is the opposite of ὀξυθυμία. 
Chrysostom distinguishes the two words thus: μακροθυμεῖ τις 
πρὸς ἐκείνους ovs δυνατὸν καὶ ἀμύνασθαι" ὑπομένει δὲ os od δύναται 
ἀμύνασθαι; but this, though correct as to μακροθυμεῖ, is clearly 
inadequate for ὑπομένει. 

11, 12. μετὰ χαρᾶς εὐχαριστοῦντες. μετὰ χαρᾶς is joined by many 
comm. to the preceding (Theodoret, Olsh. De W. Alf. Eadie, 
Lightfoot, RV.). In defence of this it is said that εὐχαριστεῖν of 
itself implies joyfulness, so that μετὰ x. if attached to it would be 
flat and unmeaning ; also that by joining the words with ety. we 
lose the essential idea of joyful endurance. Lightfoot, quoting 
Jas. 1. 2, 3, πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε ~ . . ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε 
ποικίλοις, γινώσκοντες OTL TO δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πιστέως κατεργάζεται 
ὑπομονήν, remarks that this parallel points to the connexion with 
the preceding, and adds that the emphatic position of the words if 
connected with εὐχ. cannot be explained.’ It may be replied that 
εὐχαριστεῖν does not necessarily imply joy. See, for example, 
t Cor. xiv. 18, “1 thank God, I speak with tongues more than you 
all,” x. 30; Col. ii. 17. χαρᾶς is so far from being flat or unmean- 
ing, that without it εὐχαριστοῦντες would be too weak. ‘The idea of 
joyful endurance is not lost when the prayer passes from endur- 
ance to joyful thanksgiving; and the emphatic position of the 
words 1s sufficiently explained by the writer’s desire to emphasise 
this characteristic of their thanksgiving with special reference to 
the trials implied in ὑπομονή and μακροθυμίας The words thus 
acquire greater significance than if they slipped in as it were after 
μακροθυμίαν. The connexion with εὐχαριστοῦντες is also favoured 
by the structure of the preceding clauses, each of which com- 
mences with a defining adjunct. This connexion is adopted by 
Chrys. Theoph. Oecum., also Ellicott, Meyer, Soden, Lachm. Tisch. 

In any case εὖχ. is not to be connected with οὐ παυόμεθα, as 
Chrys. Theoph. αὐ, which unnaturally separates this clause from 
the preceding, making them parenthetical. This interpretation was 
suggested by the reading ἡμᾶς: but even if that is correct, the 
transition from the second person to the first is quite in St. Paul’s 
manner 5 ch ΠΤ, 155. 

τῷ Πατρί. ‘The designation of God thus absolutely as 6 Πατήρ, 
when Christ has not been named immediately before (as in Rom. 
Vi) 5 3 Eph: a. 183) Acts 21/4, +7, u. 33), 15 remarkable. ~ “But we 
have τοῦ Κυρίου in ver. το, and, what is perhaps more to the point, 
τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ In Ver. 13. 


N 37 (G, Θεω Tw πατρι), Vulg-Clem. Boh. a/. prefix Θεῷ πατρί. 


τῷ ἱκανώσαντι ὑμᾶς: “ Who qualified you,” or “made you com- 


206 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 12 


petent,” z.e. given you atitle. The same verb occurs 2 Cor. iii. 6 
(only). ὃς καὶ ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης, “ qualified us 
to be ministers,” cf. 2. ver. 5. The adjective ἱκανός is of frequent 
occurrence in the N.T., always with the idea of reaching to a 
certain standard, “ sufficient,” and so when time or quantity is in 
question, “considerable.” See Mark xv. 15; Luke xxii. 38, ἱκανόν 
ἐστι: Acts xxil. 6, φῶς ἱκανόν : 2 Cor. 11. 16, πρὸς ταῦτα τίς ἱκανός : 
2 Tim. il. 2, οἵτινες ἱκανοὶ ἔσονται καὶ ἑτέρους διδάξαι. It does not 
mean “ dignus,” ‘‘ worthy,” although with a negative that transla- 
tion is not unsuitable in Matt. iii. 11, vill. 8. Here, then, ἱκάνωσεν 
is not “ dignos fecit,” Vulg., but ‘‘idoneos fecit.” 

There is an important variety of reading. For ἱκανώσαντι (which is read 
by SAC D°K LP most mss., Vulg. Boh. Syr. (both), Chrys. etc.) we have 
καλέσαντι in D* G17 80, Goth. Arm. Eth., also Didymus (once), Am- 
brosiaster ; while B has καλέσαντι καὶ ἱκανώσαντι, which is adopted by 
Lachm., but appears to be a combination of both readings. The confusion 
between TOITKANQCANTI and TOTKAAECANTI would be easy, and the 
latter word would naturally occur to a copyist. 

ὑμᾶς is the reading of SB 4 23 80 115, Amiat. Syr-Pesh. marg. Eth. 
Didymus, Theoph. Ambrosiaster. 

ἡμᾶς, ACDGKLP most mss., Vulg-Clem. Fuld. Syr-Pesh. and Harcl. 
text, Chrys. Theodoret, etc. 

Internal evidence seems rather to favour ὑμᾶς. The natural tendency of 
scribes would be to generalise such a statement, and this would be assisted by 
ἡμᾶς which presently follows. On the other hand, it would be quite natural 
for St. Paul to enforce the exhortation involved in his prayer by such a 
personal application. In the next sentence, where he passes to a direct 
dogmatic statement, he naturally and of course uses ἡμᾶς. (Yet P, aZ. Amiat. 
Goth. have ὑμᾶς there also.) Compare Eph. iv. 32, v. 2. ὑμᾶς is adopted 
here by Tisch. WH. Soden, and is given a place in the margin by Tregelles, 
Lightfoot, RV. 

eis THY μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου, “for, Ze. to obtain, the portion of 
the lot.” Compare Ps. xv. 5, Κύριος μερὶς τῆς κληρονομίας μου. 
Κλῆρος (pp. “a lot”) is not synonymous with κληρονομία, it does 
not designate the whole, but the allotted part ; cf. Acts viii. 21, οὐκ 
ἔστι σοι μερὶς οὐδὲ κλῆρος : XXVi. 18, κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις. 
What is ἃ μερίς in reference to the whole is ἃ κλῆρος in reference 
to the possessor. The genitive, then, is one of apposition, “the 
portion which consists in the lot” (Lightfoot, Soden). It is, how- 
ever, possible to understand it as partitive, “to have a share in 
the κλῆρος, and so most comm. Chrysostom observes: διὰ τί 
κλῆρον καλεῖ; δεικνὺς ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἀπὸ κατορθωμάτων οἰκείων βασιλείας 
τυγχάνει, referring to Luke xvii. το. Compare also Luke xii. 32, 
εὐδόκησεν ὃ πατὴρ ὑμῶν δοῦναι ὑμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν. 

ἐν τῷ φωτί. Chrys. Oec. Theoph. followed by Meyer, aZ, 
connect with ἱκανώσαντι, “by the light,” ἱκανοῦν ἐν τῷ φωτί being 
nothing else but καλεῖν εἰς τὸ φῶς (τ Pet. 11. 9) regarded in its 
moral efficacy, the result of which is that men are φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ 
(Eph. v. 8). This light has power, it is the light of life (John 


I. 13] POSITIVE INSTRUCTION 207 


viii. 12); has its weapons (Rom. xiii. 12); produces fruit (Eph. 
v. 9), etc.; and without it men were incapable of partaking in the 
kingdom of Christ. But φῶς is not the means, but the result ; and, 
moreover, the distance of ἐν τῷ φωτί from ἱκαν. forbids the con- 
nexion, for there is no such emphasis on the words as to account for 
their position. It is the deliverance that is the thought dwelt on, not 
the means. It is better to connect the word with τὴν μερίδα, x.7.X. 
(Alf. Lightfoot), or, if with one of the three substantives, with 
κλήρου, which has a local sense (Ellicott, Soden). Thus ἐν τῷ φωτί 
=“in the kingdom of light.” Compare 2 Cor. xi. 14; 1 Tim. 
vi. 16; 1 John i. 7; Rev. xxi. 24. κλῆρος ἐν τῷ φωτί, then, is 
equivalent to the ἐλπὶς ἀποκειμένη ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, φῶς being here 
chosen because the apostle had already in his thoughts the repre- 
sentation of the natural condition of men as σκότος. There is 
nothing, therefore, in the objection, that if this were the sense in- 
tended ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς would have been used, or ἐν τῇ ζωῇ, or the 
like. Eadie’s interpretation, “the inheritance which consists in 
light,” is untenable, and is certainly not supported by his examples 
of κλῆρος ἐν from Acts vill. 21, xxvi. 18. 

13 ff. Zrom the prayer for their increase in knowledge, St. Paul 
goes on to give them positive instruction which will be a safeguard 
against the false teaching which threatens them. They have already 
been translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of 
God’s beloved Son, and tt is in Him only that they have redemption. 

18. ὃς ἐρρύσατο (ἐρύσατο, B* GP Lightf.) ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς 
ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους. ‘‘ Who rescued us from the power of dark- 
ness.” ἐρρύσατο, δεικνὺς ὅτι ὡς αἰχμάλωτοι ἐταλαιπωρούμεθα. 
Theoph. ἐξουσία (from ἔξεστι), properly means “liberty of action,” 
as in 1 Cor. ix. 5; hence in relation to others, “authority,” 
generally “delegated authority” (but not always; see Jude 25). 
Lightfoot, following Wetstein, maintains that the word here means 
“arbitrary power, tyranny.” But the instances he cites seem quite 
insufficient to support this. In Demosth., for example, De /adsa 
Leg. p. 428, τὴν ἄγαν ταύτην ἐξουσίαν, it is the word ἄγαν that 
introduces the idea of excess, just as we might speak of the 
“excessive exercise of authority.” From the etymology of the 
word it is applicable, whether the ἐξεῖναι is assumed or rightfully 
derived. Whatever its use, however, in Plutarch or other writers, 
the usage of the N.T. gives no support to Lightfoot’s view. It is 
a word of very frequent occurrence (being found nearly one 
hundred times), and always in the simple sense of “authority” 
(abstract or concrete). If the “idea of disorder is involved” in 
ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους here and in Luke xxii. 53, it is suggested by 
σκότους, not by ἐξουσία. When Chrysostom, after explaining 
τῆς ἐξουσίας by τῆς τυραννίδος, adds: χαλεπὸν᾽ καὶ τὸ ἁπλῶς εἶναι 
ὑπὸ τῷ διαβόλῳ" τὸ δὲ καὶ μετ᾽ ἐξουσίας, τοῦτο χαλεπώτερον, his 


208 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 14 


meaning seems to be: “It is hard to be simply under the power 
of the devil ; but that he should also have authority is still harder.” 
This gives much more force to his words. That ἐξουσία is not 
opposed to βασιλεία, as an arbitrary tyranny to a well-ordered 
sovereignty, see Rev. xil. 10, ἣ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ 
ἐξουσία τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ The whole passage is strikingly 
parallel to Acts xxvi. 18, τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς καὶ 
τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν, τοῦ λαβεῖν αὐτοὺς ἄφεσιν 
ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις. σκότος here is not to be 
regarded as personified, as if it were equivalent to “the devil” 
(Augustine) ; it is rather the characteristic and ruling principle of 
the region in which they dwelt before conversion to Christ. 

kat μετέστησεν: ‘The verb is appropriate, being that which is 
employed by classical writers to signify the removal of whole 
bodies of men. Yet it is doubtful whether such an idea is 
present here; cf. Plato, Rep. vil. p. 518 A, ἔκ τε φωτὸς εἰς σκότος 
μεθισταμένων καὶ ἐκ σκότους εἰς φῶς. 

τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ. Not of angels, as the false teachers 
would have it. ὑπὸ τὸν κληρόνομον ἐσμέν, οὐχ ὑπὸ τοὺς οἰκέτας, 
Severianus. 

τῆς ἀγάπης adrov. Augustine understands this as a genitive 
“‘auctoris.” ‘Caritas quippe Patris ... nihil est quam ejus 
ipsa natura atque substantia... ac per hoc filius caritatis 
ejus nullus est alius quam qui de ejus substantia est genitus” 
(De Trin. xv. 19). He is followed by Olshausen and Lightfoot. 
But such a form of expression has no analogy in the N.T. Love 
is not the “substantia” or ‘‘natura” of God, but an essential 
attribute. An action might be ascribed to it, but not the genera- 
tion of a person. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted the expression in an 
opposite way: υἱὸν ἀγάπης αὐτὸν ἐκάλεσεν ὡς οὐ φύσει τοῦ Πατρὸς 
ὄντα υἱὸν ἀλλ᾽ ἀγάπῃ τῆς υἱοθεσίας ἀξιωθέντα τούτων. But an 
explanation of the nature of the Sonship would be alien to the 
context. The simplest interpretation is, “the Son who is the 
object of His love.” It corresponds exactly with Eph. 1. 6, év 
τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν, x.t.X., Only that it gives more pro- 
minence to the attribute. Love is not merely bestowed upon 
Him, but makes Him its own. vids ὀδύνης pov in Gen. xxxv. 18 
(Meyer, Ellicott) is not parallel. 

Lightfoot thinks this interpretation destroys the whole force of 
the expression; but it is not so. It is because Christ is the 
central object of God’s love that those who have been translated 
into His kingdom are assured of the promised blessings thereof. 

14. ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν, k.t.A. = Eph. 1. 7. 

The words διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ of the Rec. Text are an interpolation 

from Eph. i. 7. They are found in many minuscules, and in Vulg-Clem, 


I. 15] PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST 209 


Demid. Syr-Pesh. Arm., Theodoret, Oec. ; but apparently not in any uncial 
nor in the other versions. 

For ἔχομεν B, Boh. Arab. (Lips. Bedwell) read ἔσχομεν. In the 
parallel passage, Eph. i. 7, 8* D* (not the Latin d) Boh. Eth., Iven. 
(transl.) have ἔσχομεν. Lightfoot thinks that this reading in Eph. was a 
harmonistic change to conform to the text which these authorities or their 
predecessors found in Col., and judges that ἔσχομεν is possibly the correct 
reading here. WH. also give it a place in the margin. Yet it is hard to 
suppose that St. Paul wrote different tenses in the two places. Moreover, 
ἔσχομεν does not appear to be a suitable tense; if past time were to be 
expressed, we should expect ἐσχήκαμεν (cf. Rom. v, 2). Weiss rejects it. 


τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. This expression does not occur in 
the Epistles of St. Paul elsewhere, but twice in his speeches in 
Acts (xili. 38, xxvi. 18). In Eph. i. 7 we have the equivalent, 
ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων ; generally in the Epp. he prefers the 
more positive δικαιοσύνη. Lightfoot suggests that the studied 
precision in the definition of ἀπολύτρωσις points to some false 
conception of ἀπολ. put forward by the heretical teachers. Later 
Gnostics certainly did pervert the meaning of the term. Irenaeus 
relates of the Marcosians that they held εἶναι τελείαν ἀπολύτρωσιν 
αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ ἀρρήτου μεγέθους (. 211: 4). Hippolytus 
says: λέγουσί τι φωνῇ ἀρρήτῳ ἐπιτιθέντες χεῖρα τῷ τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν 
λαβόντι, κιτιλ. (Haer. vi. 41). In the baptismal formula of the 
Marcosians are the words: εἰς ἕνωσιν καὶ ἀπολύτρωσιν καὶ κοινωνίαν 
τῶν δυνάμεων (Iren. i. 21. 3), where the last words “surely mean 
communion with the (spiritual) powers.” In an alternative 
formula, also given by Irenaeus, the words are εἰς λύτρωσιν 
ἀγγελικήν, which is explained by Clem, “Alex (2x2. Dhead. 
p- 974) as ἣν Kal ἄγγελοι ἔχουσιν. It is not likely that there was 
any historical connexion between these later Gnostics and the 
Colossian heretics; but, as Lightfoot observes, “the passages quoted 
will serve to show how a false idea of eaoaen would naturally 
be associated with an esoteric doctrine of angelic powers.” 

15-17. Zhe pre-eminence of Christ. In His essential nature He 
zs above all created things, being the image of the invisible God; and 
more than that, all things have been created through Him and held 
together by Him. 

15. ὅς ἐστιν, κιτιλι On this verse Lightfoot has a valuable 
excursus. The arrangement of the passage 15-20 is twofold. 
We have, first, the relation of Christ to God and the world, 15-17 ; 
and, secondly, His relation to the Church, 18 ff. This division is 
indicated in the construction of the passage by the repeated ὅτι ἐν 
αὐτῷ, τό, το, introducing in each case the reason of the preceding 
statement. The relation to the Church begins with καὶ αὐτός, ver. 18. 

Some commentators regard 15-17 as descriptive of the Word 
before the Incarnation, the Λόγος ἄσαρκος; and 18-20, of the 
Incarnate Word, Λόγος ἔνσαρκος. But this is inconsistent with éoru, 

14 


210 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 15 


“tis,” which shows that St. Paul is Speaking of Christ in His present 
glorified state. Compare 2 Cor. iv. 4, τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The exalted Christ 
is now and continues to be what He was in His own nature as 
the Word before He became incarnate, John xvii. 5. 


εἰκών is primarily an image (so in Rev. often, comp. Matt. xxii. 20). 
It differs from ὁμοίωμα, which expresses mere resemblance, whereas εἰκών 
implies representation of an archetype. αὕτη yap εἰκόνος φύσις μίμημα εἶναι 
τοῦ ἀρχετύπου (Greg. Naz. Orat. 30). It may be used, therefore, to express 
resemblance in some essential character. So in Heb. x. I, εἰκών is con- 
trasted with σκιά. Compare I Cor. xv. 49, τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ Ao τὴΡ 
elk. τοῦ ἐπουρανίου : Rom. vill. 29, συμμόρφους- τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, an 
idea expressed again 2a Consett: 18, τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα : and 
Col. iii. 10, τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον κατ᾽ She τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν. An allusion 
to Gen. i. 26, 28. With the same allusion in 1 Cor. xi. 7 the apostle calls 
the man εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα Θεοῦ. ‘This last passage, in particular, forbids our 
adopting the view of some commentators, that the expression denotes ‘‘ the 
eternal Son’s perfect equality with the Father in respect of His substance, 
nature, and eternity” (Ellicott, quoting Hil. De Syn. § 73: ‘‘ perfectae 
aequalitatis significantiam habet similitudo.”). As Lightfoot remarks: ‘‘ The 
idea of perfection does not lie in the word itself, but must be sought from 
the context, ¢.g. πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα, ver. 19.” 

The expression is frequently used by Philo in reference to the Logos, 
e.g. τὸν ἀόρατον Kal νοητὸν θεῖον λόγον εἰκόνα λέγει Θεοῦ (De Mund. Op. ὃ, 
Opp. I. p. 6); λόγος δέ ἐστιν εἰκὼν Θεοῦ dv οὗ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐδημιουργεῖτο 
(De Monarch. ii. 5, 11. p. 225); and notably De .δογεγιΖζς, I. p. 656, καθάπερ 
τὴν ἀνθήλιον αὐγὴν ws ἥλιον of μὴ δυνάμενοι τὸν ἥλιον αὐτὸν ἰδεῖν ὁρῶσι. .. 
οὕτως καὶ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰκόνα, τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ λόγον, ὡς αὐτὸν κατανοοῦσι. 
Compare with this John xiv. 9, 6 ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα. 

Closely allied to εἰκών is χαρακτήρ, similarly applied to Christ in Heb. 
i, 3, ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης Kai χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, 


τοῦ ἀοράτου. ‘This word, which by its position also is emphatic, 
_ makes prominent the contrast with the εἰκών, the visibility: of which 
is therefore implied. Compare Rom. i. 20, τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ... 
τοῖς ποιήμασι νοούμενα καθορᾶται. Here Christ i is the visible mani- 
festation of the invisible. Chrysostom, indeed, and the Nicene 
and post-Nicene Fathers, argued that, as the archetype is invisible, 
so must the image be, 7 τοῦ ἀοράτου εἰκὼν καὶ αὐτὴ ἀόρατος καὶ 
ὁμοίως ἀόρατος. But, as Lightfoot says, “the underlying idea of 
the εἰκών, and, indeed, of the λόγος generally, is the manifestation 
of the hidden.” Compare John i. 18, Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε" 6 
μονογενὴς vids (v.2, μονογενὴς Θεός), ὃ ὧν eis τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, 
ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο, and xiv. 9, quoted above. 

πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. πρωτότοκος seems to have been a 
recognised title of the Messiah (see Heb. i. 6), perhaps derived 
from Ps. 1xxxix. 28, ἐγὼ πρωτότοκον θήσομαι αὐτόν, which is inter- 
preted of the Messiah by R. Nathan in Shemoth abba, το, fol. 
118. 4. Israel is called God’s firstborn (Ex. iv. 22; Jer. xxxi. 9), 
and hence the term was readily transferred to the Messiah, as the 
ideal representative of the race, 


I. 15] PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST 211 


The genitive here is not partitive, as the following context 
clearly shows, for ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα. Setting this aside, 
commentators are not agreed as to the interpretation of πρωτότοκος. 
Eadie, Hofmann, αἰ, understand it of sovereignty. Alford and 
Lightfoot, while giving the first place to the idea of priority to all 
creation, admit sovereignty over all creation as part of the connota- 
tion. So Theodore of Mops., οὐκ ἐπὶ χρόνον λέγεται μόνον: ἀλλὰ 
γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ προτιμήσεως (but he interprets κτίσεως of the new 
creation). In defence of this interpretation of the word Ps. 
Ixxxvill. 28 is quoted, where after πρωτότοκον θήσομαι αὐτόν the 
explanation is added, ὑψηλὸν παρὰ τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τῆς γῆς : also what 
appears as a paraphrase of this, ἔθηκεν κληρόνομον πάντων, Heb. 
i. 2: also Ex. iv. 22; Rom. vill. 29, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον 
ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. Job xvill. 13, “the firstborn of death,” for 
“‘a fatal malady”; and Isa. xiv. 30, “the firstborn of the poor,” 
for “the very poor,” are also referred to. Lightfoot quotes R. 
Bechai, who calls God Himself the firstborn of the world, and he 
concludes that the words signify “‘ He stands in the relation of zp. 
to all creation,” 2.6. “‘ He is the Firstborn, and as the Firstborn the 
absolute Heir and Sovereign Lord of all creation.” 

The passages cited do not justify this interpretation. In Ex. 
iv. 22 the word does not at all mean “sovereign,” which would be 
quite out of place even apart from the prefixed “my,” but “ object 
of favour.” In Ps. lxxxvill. 28, again, the added words, if taken 
as an explanation of zpwr. simply, would go too far; but it is the 
πρωτότοκος Of God, who is said to be “higher than the kings of the 
earth.” θήσομαι αὐτὸν πρ. is, “1 will put him in the position of a 
firstborn,” and the following words are not an explanation of zp., 
but state the result of God’s regarding him as such. Compare the 
English phrase, “ making one an eldest son by will.” By no means 
would the words of the psalm justify such an expression as πρωτό- 
τόκος τῶν βασιλέων, unless it were intended to include the zp. 
amongst the βασιλεῖς. As the context forbids our including the 
πρωτότοκος here amongst the κτίσις, the interpretation leaves the 
genitive inexplicable. It is called “the genitive of reference” ; but 
this is too vague to explain anything, as will appear by substituting 
either κόσμου for κτίσεως, or μέγας for tpwr. Thus πρωτότοκος τοῦ 
κόσμου for “sovereign in relation to the world,” and μέγας πάσης 
κτίσεως are equally impossible. If by “genitive of reference” is 
meant “genitive of comparison,” then we come back to the relation 
of priority in πρῶτος. In fact, the genitive after zp. must be rst, 
genitive of possession, as “my firstborn,” 2nd, partitive, “ firstborn ” 
of the class, or 3rd, of comparison, as in John i. 15, πρῶτός μου ἦν. 
A moment’s reflection will show that Isa. xiv. 30 is not parallel, 
for there “the firstborn of the poor” is included in the class. In 
Job xviii. 13 (which, moreover, is poetical) the genitive is posses- 


ane THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [1. 15 


sive, “death’s chief instrument.” Rom. viii. 29, there is no 
genitive, but zp. is included ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. 

Rabbi Bechai’s designation of God as “ firstborn of the world” 
is a fanciful interpretation of Ex. xiii. 2. R. Bechai probably 
meant by the expression “ priority,” not “supremacy.” ‘The first- 
born were to be consecrated to God because He was the First of 
all. But it must be remembered that the Hebrew word is not 
etymologically parallel to πρωτότοκος. 

Hence the only tenable interpretation of the words before us is 
“begotten before πᾶσα κτίσις, the genitive being like that in 
John i. 15, πρωτότοκον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων, 
Justin M. Dia? ὃ τοο. The only ideas involved are priority in 
time and distinction from the genus κτίσις. οὐχ ὡς ἀδελφὴν ἔχων 
τὴν κτίσιν, GAN ὡς πρὸ πάσης κτίσεως γεννηθείς, Theodoret ; and SO 
Chrysostom : οὐχὶ ἀξίας κ. τιμῆς ἰλλὰ Χρόνου μόνον ἐστι σημαντικόν. 
Compare Rev. ili. 14, ἣ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ. πρωτόκτιστος 
Or πρωτόπλαστος Would have implied that Christ was created like 
πᾶσα κτίσις. 

Isidore of Pelusium, in the interests of orthodoxy, assigns an 
active meaning to πρωτοτόκος (to be in that case thus accented), 
not, however, a meaning corresponding to the signification of 
πρωτοτόκος in Classical writers, which is “ primipara,” and could 
yield no tolerable sense, but as “primus auctor.” His words are: 
ov πρῶτον τῆς κτίσεως. . . . ἀλλὰ πρῶτον αὐτὸν τετοκέναι τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι 
πεποιηκέναι τὴν κτίσιν ἵνα ἣ τρίτης συλλαβῆς ὁ ὀξυμένης, ὡς πρωτοκτίστος 
(Zp. ii. 31). Basil seems to adopt the same view, for, comparing 
ver. 19, he Says: εἰ δὲ πρωτότοκος νεκρῶν εἴρηται, διὰ τὸ αἴτιος εἶναι 
τῆς ἐν νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως, οὕτω καὶ πρωτότοκος, κτίσεως, διὰ τὸ αἴτιος 
εἶναι τοῦ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εἰς τὸ εἶναι παραγαγεῖν τὴν κτίσιν (Contra 
Lunom. lib. iv. p. 292 D). (The true reading in ver. 19 is zp. ἐκ 
τῶν νεκρῶν, but zp. τῶν v. is In Rey. 1. 

This interpretation is followed by Michaelis and some others. 
In addition, however, to the unsuitableness of τίκτειν in this 
connexion, πρῶτος is unsuitable, since there would be no possibility 
of a δευτεροτόκος. 

πάσης κτίσεως. κτίσις in N.T. has three meanings: 1st, the 
act of creation (the primary meaning of κτίσις as of “creation.”), 
Rom. 1. 20, ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου: 2nd, “creation” as the universe 
of created things, Rom. vill. 22, πᾶσα 4 κτίσις συστενάζει: 3rd, “ar 
creation,” a single created thing, Rom. vili. 39, οὔτε τις κτίσις ἑτέρα. 
Here it may be questioned whether πάσης κτίσεως means “all 
creation” (RV. Alford, Lightfoot, a/.) or “every creature” (AV. 
Meyer, Ellicott, a7). In favour of the latter rendering is the 
absence of the article, which we should expect after πᾶς in the 
former sense. It may be replied that κτίσις belongs to the class 
of nouns which from their meaning may sometimes dispense with 


a 15] PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST 213 


the article, such as γῆ (Luke ii. 14; Heb. viii. 4), οὐρανός (Acts 
iti 2t, 7), κύα μὸς (ROM. Vv. 13, ΧΙ 12,15, @/). Yet 16 1s’ very 
rarely, and only in particular combinations, that these words are 
without the article. As an instance of κτίσις -- [π6 aggregate of 
created things being without the article, is cited Mark xiii. 19, ἀπὸ 
ἀρχῆς κτίσεως, the parallel in Matt. xxiv. 21 having ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κόσμου. 
So also Matt..x. 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4. 

But granting that κτίσις here Ξε κόσμος (which might be ques- 
tioned) the point to be noted is the anarthrous use, not of κτίσις, 
but of the compound term ἀρχὴ κτίσεως, like ἀρχὴ κόσμου ; and 
this is precisely parallel to the similar use of καταβολὴ κόσμου, 
which we have several times with ἀπό and πρό, always without the 
article. So we have frequently ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ἀρχῇ, ἐξ ἀρχῆς. 
Similarly, εἰς τέλος, ἕως τέλους, μέχρι τέλους. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς being regu- 
larly used without the article, it is in accordance with rule that in 
ἀπὸ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως the latter word should also be anarthrous. 
Moreover, even κόσμος and γῆ, which are cited as examples of 
words occasionally anarthrous, do not dispense with the article 
when πᾶς precedes, probably because of the possible ambiguity 
which would result. There appears, therefore, no sufficient 
. justification for departing from the natural rendering, “every 
created thing.” This furnishes an additional reason against the 
interpretation which would include the πρωτότοκος in πᾶσα 
κτίσις. 

This exposition of the unique and supreme position of Christ is 
plainly directed against the errors of the false teachers, who denied 
this supremacy. 

The history of the ancient interpretation of the expression 
πρωτότοκος τ. κτ., 15 interesting and instructive. The Fathers of 
the second and third centuries understand it correctly of the 
Eternal Word (Justin, Clem. Alex., Tert., Origen, etc.). But when 
the Arians made use of the expression to prove that the Son was 
a created being, many of the orthodox were led to adopt the view 
that the words relate to the Incarnate Christ, understanding, there- 
fore, κτίσις and κτίζεσθαι of the new spiritual creation, the καινὴ 
κτίσις. (Athanasius, Greg. Nyss., Cyril, Theodore Mops.) As 
Lightfoot observes, this interpretation “shatters the context,” for, 
as a logical consequence, we must understand ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ 
πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς Kal ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς and ver. 17 of the work of the 
Incarnation ; and to do this is “to strain language in a way which 
would reduce all theological exegesis to chaos.” In addition to this, 
the interpretation disregards the history of the terms, and “takes 
no account of the cosmogomy and angelology of the false teachers 
against which the apostle’s exposition here is directed.” Basil 
prefers the interpretation which refers the expression to the Eternal 
Word, and so Theodoret and Severianus, and the later Greek 


214 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS be 16 


writers generally (Theoph. Oecumenius, etc.). Chrysostom’s view 
is not clear. 

16. ὅτι introduces the proof of the designation, πρωτότοκος 
πάσης kt. It leaves, therefore, no doubt as to the meaning of that 
expression, and shows that the πρωτότοκος is not included in πᾶσα 
κτίσις, for τὰ πάντα is equivalent to πᾶσα κτίσις. 

ἐν αὐτῷ is not 51Π20Ρ]0Υ -- δ αὐτοῦ, 1 Cor. viii. 6 (Chrys. etc.). 
The latter designates Christ as the mediate instrument, the former 
goes further, and seems to express that the conditioning cause of 
the act of creation resided in Him. ‘The Eternal Word stood in 
the same relation to the created Universe as the Incarnate Christ 
to the Church. The latter relation is constantly expressed by ἐν, 
which is also used by classical writers to express that the cause of 
a relation exists in some person. Comp. ver. 17, ἐν αὐτῷ συν- 
έστηκεν, and for the preposition, Acts xvii. 28, ἐν αὐτῷ ζῶμεν καὶ 
κινούμεθα καί ἐσμεν. The originating cause ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα is God 
the Father, Rom. xi. 36; 1 Cor. viii. 6. 

The Schoolmen, following, indeed, Origen and Athanasius, inter- 
preted the words of the causa exemplaris, viz. that the zdea omnium 
rerum was in Christ. So that He was, as it were, the Archetypal Uni- 
verse, the summary of finite being as it existed in the Eternal Mind. 
This view has been adopted by Neander, Schleiermacher, Olshausen, 
and others. Olshausen says: ‘The Son of God is the intelligible 
world, the κόσμος νοητός, that is, things in their Idea. In the 
creation they come forth from Him to an independent existence.” 

This would correspond to Philo’s view of the Logos (which to 
him, however, was a philosophical abstraction), οὐδὲ ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἰδεῶν 
κόσμος ἄλλον ἂν ἔχοι τόπον ἢ τὸν θεῖον λόγων τὸν ταῦτα διακοσμή- 
σαντα (De Mundi Op. iv. § 4, tom. i. p. 4), and again: ὅσα ἂν 
ἐνθυμήματα τέκῃ, ὥσπερ ἐν οἴκῳ TO λόγῳ διαθείς (Ve Migr. Abr. 1. 
tom. 1. p. 437). Lightfoot regards the apostle’s teaching as “an 
enlargement of this conception, inasmuch as the Logos is no 
longer a philosophical abstraction, but a Divine Person,” and he 
quotes, seemingly with assent, the words of Hippolytus: ἔχει ἐν 
ἑαυτῷ τὰς ἐν τῷ πατρὶ προεννοηθείσας ἰδέας ὅθεν κελεύοντος πατρὸς 
γίνεσθαι κόσμον τὸ κατὰ ἐν Λόγος ἀπετελεῖτο ἀρέσκων Θεῷ (Haer. 
X. 33). 

But, however attractive this interpretation may be, it is incon- 
sistent with ἐκτίσθη, which expresses the historical act of creation, 
not a preceding εἶναι ἐν atra. Nor has it any support elsewhere 
in the N.T. 

ἐκτίσθη, “were created.” Schleiermacher (Studien u. Kritthen, 
1832) alleges that the verb is never used in Hellenistic Greek of 
creation proper, and therefore understands it here of constitution 
and arrangement; and he interprets the statement as referring to 
the foundation of the Church. The word is often so used in classical 


Ἰ. 16] PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST 215 


writers. But in the N.T. κτίζω, κτίσις, κτίσμα are always used of 
original creation or production. See for the verb Mark xiii. 19; 
ΠΟΤ 58} τ ὍΤΕ ΧΙ οἷ nlim. iv. 5.5 Apocs iva. τ ΣΧ ὁ. Its 
use in Eph. 11. ro, 15, iv. 24 is not an exception, the καινὸς ἄνθρω- 
mos being regarded as a new creation. 

The tenses of ἐκτίσθη, ἔκτισται are to be noted; the former is 
suitable to the historical fact of creation, the latter to the per- 
manent relations of the creation to the Creator; comp. συνέστηκεν, 
ver. 17. Ζ. 

τὰ πάντα, all things collectively, presently specified as to place 
and nature. ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, an expression desig- 
nating all created things, the heaven and earth themselves not 
excluded, as Wetstein would have it, who infers that not the 
physical creation is meant, but “habitatores . . . qui recon- 
ciliantur.” The compendious expression is adopted because the 
apostle has chiefly in view the heavenly beings; but τὰ πάντα 
shows that the statement is meant to be universal. 

The τά of Text. Rec. before ἐν τοῖς οὐρ. is omitted by X* BD* G P17, αἰ. 
dfg Vulg. 

Inserted by N° A D°K L and most mss. 

τά before ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is omitted by &* B, dfg Vulg. 

Inserted by SX* ACDGKLP. 

It will be observed that the authority for omission is much greater in the 
first clause than in the second, although the one cannot be inserted or omitted 
without the other. It is possible, therefore, that τά was accidentally omitted 
in the first clause after πάντα, and then omitted from the second for the sake 
of uniformity. On the other hand, it may have been inserted in both places 
from the parallels in ver. 20 and in Eph. i. 10. 

τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, a Platonic division; θῶμεν οὖν, εἰ 
βούλει, ἔφη, δύο εἴδη τῶν ὄντων, τὸ μὲν ὁρατόν, τὸ δὲ ἀειδές. The 
latter term here refers to the spirit world, as the following context 
indicates. Chrys. Theoph. Lightfoot, etc., suppose human souls 
to be included, but it is more probable that man as a whole is 
included among the ὁρατά. 

εἴτε θρόνοι, κιτιλ. In the parallel, Eph. i, 21, we have ὑπεράνω 
πάσης ἀρχῆς Kal ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος. It will be 
noted that both the names and the order are different. Moreover, 
the addition in Eph., καὶ παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου, shows that 
St. Paul is only adopting current terms, not communicating any 
incidental revelation about objective facts (see on Eph. i. 21). 
_ The gist of the passage is to make light of the speculations about 
the orders of angels, but to insist on the supremacy of Christ. 

“His language here shows the same spirit of impatience with 
this elaborate angelology as in 11. 18,” Lightfoot. It is said, 
indeed, that St. Paul “is glorifying the Son of God by a view of 
His relation to created being; and assuredly this would not be 
best done by alluding to phases of created being which might all 


216 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 16 


the while be figments of the imagination” (Moule). But it is 
sufficient for the purpose that the existence of angelic beings in 
general should be a reality. If St. Paul accepts as true the funda- 
mental assumption of the heretical angelology, it seems to follow 
that revelations about heavenly existences may be found elsewhere 
than in the Scriptures, for this system of the angelic hierarchy 
could not be derived either from the O.T. or from reason. 

θρόνοι are not mentioned elsewhere in the N.T., but in 7851. 
XII. Patr. (Levi 3) they are placed in the highest (seventh) heaven. 
Probably the name was meant as a designation of spirits who 
occupied thrones surrounding the throne of God. Comp. Rev. 
iv. 4. Clement of Alex. seems to regard them as so called because 
supporting or forming the throne of God (Proph. Ec/. 57), as the 
cherubim ‘are represented ‘im Fzek. 1x. 3, x5 1, ΧΙ 225) Ps πὸ 5. 
xcix. 1. Fora summary of Jewish and Christian speculations as 
to the angelic hierarchy, Lightfoot’s note may be consulted. 

τὰ πάντα κιτιλ. This is properly separated from the foregoing 
by a colon after ἐξουσίαι. ‘The sentence emphatically restates in a 
form applied to the present what had already been said of the 
relation of Christ to the creation. ‘Thus what was described in 
16 as a historical act by ἐκτίσθη, is here repeated, regarded as a 
completed and continuing fact; so ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν expresses 
what for the present existence of things is the logical consequence 
of their origin ἐν αὐτῷ; and, lastly, καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων 
repeats πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. εἰς αὐτόν introduces a new idea. 

εἰς αὐτόν. The conditions of existence of the created universe 
are so ordered that without Christ it cannot attain its perfection. 
This eis αὐτόν is nearly equivalent to δι ὅν in Heb. ii. το. He is 
Alpha and Omega, the ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος (Apoc. xxii. 13). This εἰς 
αὐτὸν ἔκτισται is the antecedent condition of the subjection of all 
things to Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28. There is no inconsistency, then (as 
Holtzmann and others maintain), between this passage and 1 Cor. 
vili. 6 (where the subject of εἰς αὐτόν is not τὰ πάντα, but ἡμεῖς), or 
Rom. xi. 36, where it is said of God, ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ dv αὐτοῦ καὶ eis 
αὐτὸν τὰ πάντας Had ἐξ αὐτοῦ been used, there would have been 
an inconsistency ; but as the passage stands, the subordination to 
the Father is fully indicated by the form of expression, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ 
καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, implying that it was by the Father that He was 
appointed the τέλος. This double use of εἰς αὐτόν to express the 
immediate end and the final end, is parallel to the double use of 
δι αὐτοῦ with reference to Christ in x Cor. vill. 6, and to God in 
Rom. xi. 36. 

The thought in Eph. i. το, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν 
Χριστῷ, is very similar to the present; but, of course, we cannot 
quote Eph. in a question touching the genuineness of the present 
Epistle. 


Ἱ 1, 187 PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST 217 


17. καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων. αὐτός is emphatic, as always 
in the nom. ‘He himself,” in contrast, namely, to the created 
things. πρὸ πάντων, like πρωτότοκος, is of priority in time not in 
rank (which would be ἐπὶ πάντων, ὑπὲρ πάντα, or the like). In 
Jas. v. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 8, πρὸ παντῶν is adverbial, “above all,” 
“especially,” and if so taken here, we should render “ He especially 
exists.” The words repeat with emphasis the assertion of pre- 
existence. ἦν might have been used, but ἐστιν is more suitable to 
express immutability of existence. As we might say, “‘ His existence 
is before all things” ; compare John viii. 58, πρὶν ᾽Α βραὰμ γίνεσθαι, 
ἐγώ εἰμι. Lightfoot accentuates the verb αὐτὸς ἔστιν ; but as the 
predicate is πρὸ πάντων, ἐστίν appears to be only the copula. 

The Latin takes πάντων as masculine, ‘ante omnes,” Ze. 
thronos, etc.; but the following τὰ πάντα is decisive against this. 

συνέστηκε. ‘‘ Consist,” “maintain their coherence.” ‘Corpus 
unum, integrum, perfectum, secum consentiens esse et permanere” 
(Reiske, Zzdex Demosth.). ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ πάντα, καὶ διὰ Θεοῦ ἡμῖν 
συνέστηκεν (Aristot. De Mundo, vi. 471): ξυνεστάναι τῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
δημιουργῷ αὐτόν τε καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ (Plato, Rep. 530A). Compare 
also Philo, 6 ἔναιμος ὄγκος, ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ διαλυτὸς ὧν καὶ νεκρός, 
συνέστηκε καὶ ζωπυρεῖται προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ (Quis Rer. Div. haeres. p. 489). 
The Logos is called by Philo the δεσμός of the universe. 

18-20. Transition to Christ's relation to the Church. ἀπὸ τῆς 
θεολογίας eis τὴν οἰκονομίαν, Theodoret. Here also He is first, the 
jirstborn from the dead, and the Head of the Church, all the fulness 
of God dwelling in Him. So that even the angelic powers are included 
tn the work of. reconciliation which has been wrought through Flim. 

18. καὶ αὐτός, and He and none other, “ipse in quo omnia 
consistunt est ¢ ‘aput. ii 

7 κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς ἐκκλησίας. τῆς ἐκκλησίας in apposition 
with σώματος ; equipare: VEL. aa ὅ ἐστιν ἢ ἐκκλησία, and Eph. 1. 2 3) 
τῇ ἐκκλ. ἥτις ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ. σώματος is added in order to 
define more precisely the meaning of the figure, κεφαλὴ τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας. It shows that the writer is not using κεφαλή vaguely, 
* but with the definite figure of the relation of head to body in his 
thoughts. 4 

ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή = “in that He is.” In classical Greek ye would 
probably be added. ἀρχή has special but not exclusive reference to 
the following words, which express the aspect in which ἀρχή is 
here viewed. πρωτότοκος implies that other νεκροί follow ; ἀρχή, that 
He it was who made possible that others should follow. He 
was the Principle and the first example, ἀρχή, φησίν, ἐστι τῆς 
ἀναστάσεως, πρὸ πάντων ἀναστάς, Theoph. Thus He was the 
ἀπαρχή, I Cor. xv. 20, 23; and the ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς, Acts iii, 14. 
His resurrection is His title to the headship of the Church: cf. 
Rom. 1. 4. 


218 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 19 


ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν. Not “amongst,” which would be zp. τῶν vexp. 
as in Rev. 1. 5, but “from among.” That others were raised 
before Him is not regarded as an objection to this. Theophy- 
lact observes: εἰ yap καὶ ἄλλοι πρὸ τούτου ἀνέστησαν, ἀλλὰ πάλιν 
ἀπέθανον" αὐτὸς δὲ τὴν τελείαν ἀνάστασιν ἀνέστη. 

ἵνα γένηται. “That He may become,” not “be,” as Vulg. As 
_ ἐστί is used to express what He is, so γένηται of what as a con- 
sequence He is to become, viz. ἐν πᾶσιν, «.7.A. ‘‘ Himself in all 
things pre-eminent.” πᾶσιν is not masculine, ‘inter omnes,” as 
Beza and others take it, but neuter, as the following τὰ πάντα 
makes certain. πρωτεύειν does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., 
but is found in classical writers and in the Sept. Thus in a 
connexion similar to the present, Plutarch (Jor. p. 9), σπεύδοντες 
τοὺς παῖδας ev πᾶσι τάχιον πρωτεύειν. Demosthenes also has 
πρωτεύειν ἐν ἅπασι, but with ἅπασι, masc. (p. 1416). Chrysostom’s 
explanation here is: πανταχοῦ πρῶτος" ἄνω πρῶτος, ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ 
πρῶτος, ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει πρῶτος. This πρωτεύειν is the final result 
of the state to which the πρωτότοκον εἶναι ἐκ τῶν νεκρῷν was the 
introduction, but is not involved in the word πρωτότοκος itself. 

19. ὅτι. ‘The correspondence with ὅτι in ver. 16, following ὅς 
ἐστιν of ver. 15, shows that this assigns a reason, not for ἵνα γένηται, 
but for ὅς ἐστιν, ver. 18. The indwelling of the Godhead explains 
the headship of the Church as well as that of the Universe. 

εὐδόκησεν. The subject may be either ὁ Θεός or πᾶν τὸ 
πλήρωμα. The former view is adopted by most comm., including 
Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot, De Wette, Winer. In favour of it, the 
ellipsis of ὁ Θεός in Jas. i. 12, iv. 6, is quoted, and it is remarked 
that the omission here is the more easy, because “ εὐδοκία, εὐδοκεῖν, 
etc. (like θέλημα), are used absolutely of God’s good purpose, e.g. 
Luke τι. 14; Phil. π 13.” But the verb εὐδοκεῖν is used by St. 
Paul even more frequently of men than of God (seven times to 
three). It cannot, therefore, be said that it was in any sense a 
technical term for the Divine counsel, so as to render the express 
mention of ὁ Θεός as the subject unnecessary ; nor is there any 
instance of its being used absolutely in this sense; see 1 Cor. 1. 

1; Gal. 1. 15, where ὃ Θεός is expressed with the verb. Indeed, 
except in Luke i. 14, even the substantive εὐδοκία, when it refers 
to God, is always defined either by a genitive (Eph. 1. 5, 9) or by 
6 Θεός being the subject of the sentence, as in Phil. ii. 13, where 
the article with an abstract noun after a preposition “‘ necessarily 
brings in a reflexive sense,—to be referred to the subject of the 
sentence,” Alford. 

Here there is nothing in the context from which ὁ Θεός can be 
supplied, and clearness, especially in such an important passage, 
would require it to be expressed. 

Further, although an example is cited from 2 Macc, xiv. 35 im 


I. 19] PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST 219 


which the subject of the infinitive after εὐδοκεῖν is different from the 
subject of the finite verb (ov, Κύριε, εὐδόκησας ναὸν τῆς σῆς KaTa- 
σκηνώσεως ἐν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι), yet in every instance in the N.T. (six) 
in which εὐδοκεῖν is followed by an infinitive, the subject of both is 
the same. The assumed change of subject to the two infinitives 
κατοικ. and ἀποκατ. is also harsh. Lastly, the words seem to be an 
echo of Ps, Ixvili. 17, 6 Θεὸς εὐδόκησε κατοικεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ, while in ii. 9 
we have a close parallel in ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς 
θεότητος. 

For these reasons it seems best to take πᾶν τὸ πλ. as the 
subject. So Ewald, Ellicott, Scholefield, Soden, RV. marg. 

A third interpretation, which has little to recommend it, is that 
of Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 19), according to which the subject of 
εὐδόκησεν 15 6 Χριστός ; and this is adopted by Conybeare and 
Hofmann. εἰς αὐτόν then would be “to Himself.” But it was 
not to Christ but to the Father that all things were reconciled 
by Him; compare 2 Cor. v. 19. As Lightfoot observes, the 
interpretation ‘confuses the theology of the passage hopelessly.” 

Although the tense is the aorist, ‘hath been pleased to dwell” 
represents the sense better than “was pleased to dwell.” For as 
the good pleasure must accompany the dwelling, instead of being 
a transient act, antecedent to it, the latter expression would be 
equivalent to “ dwelt,” and so would only refer to past time. 

πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα. If this is the subject of evd. it, of course, 
means “all the fulness of the Godhead,” τῆς θεότητος, as in 11. 9, 
“omnes divitiae divinae naturae” (Fritz.), πᾶν τὸ mA. being 
personified. But even if ὃ Θεός is taken as the subject, it is most 
natural to interpret this expression by that in ii. 9, where κατοικεῖ 
is also used. It is, indeed, objected by Meyer and Eadie that the 
Divine essence dwelt in Christ ‘“ necessarily ” (‘“ nothwendig,” 
Meyer) and “unchangeably” (Eadie), not by the Father’s good 
pleasure and purpose. Hence they understand with Beza, ‘‘ cumu- 
latissima omnium divinarum rerum copia . . . ex qua in Christo 
tanquam inexhausto fonte, omnes gratiae in nos... deriventur.” 
Alford, while adopting the interpretation, rightly sets aside the 
objection of Meyer and Eadie to the former view, saying that “ all 
that is His own right is His Father’s pleasure, and is ever referred 
to that pleasure by Himself.” 

Severianus and Theodoret interpret πλήρωμα of the Church, 
following Eph. 1. 23. The latter says: πληρ. τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐν 
τῇ πρὸς ᾿Βφεσίους ἐκάλεσεν, ὡς τῶν θείων χαρισμάτων πεπληρωμένην. 
ταύτην ἔφη εὐδοκῆσαι τὸν Θεὸν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ κατοικῆσαι, τουτέστιν 
αὐτῷ συνῆφθαι ; and so many moderns. Similarly Schleiermacher, 
who, referring to πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν in Rom. xi. 12, 25, 26, 
explains the word here of the fulness of the Gentiles and the 
whole of Israel, whose indwelling in Christ 15 the permanent state 


220 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 20 


which is necessarily preceded by the complete reconciliation of 
which the peacemaking was the condition. But there is nothing 
to support this either in the absolute use of 7A. or in the context 
here. It is clear that the κατοικῆσαι is stated as the antecedent, 
not the consequent of azroxar., “ haec inhabitatio est fundamentum 
reconciliationis,” Bengel. Other interpretations may be found in 
De Wette and Meyer. 

κατοικῆσαι implies permanent, or rather “settled” residence, 
not a mere παροικίᾳ. Cf. Gen. xxxvi. 44 (xxxvil. 1), κατῴκει δὲ 
Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ γῇ οὗ παρῴκησεν ὃ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐν γῇ Χαναάν. That 
the word of itself does not always imply “ permanent residence,” see 
Acts vil. 4, κατῴκησεν ἐν Χαρράν᾽ κἀκεῖθεν μετῴκισεν αὐτὸν εἰς τῆν 
γῆν ταύτην : see on Lk. xi, 26. ‘The aorist seems to be usually 
employed in the sense, “take up one’s abode in.” Compare Matt. 
ll. 23, ἵν. 13; Acts vil. 2, 4; Eph. ili. 17. This, however, cannot 
be insisted on here, where the infinitive is dependent on an aorist. 

It is probable, as Lightfoot remarks, that the false teachers 
maintained only a partial and transient connexion of the πλήρωμα 
with the Lord. 

20. ἀποκαταλλάξαι. The ἀπὸ may be intensive, ‘ prorsus 
reconciliare,” or, aS in ἀποκαθιστάναι, may mean “again” (so 
Alford, Ell., Lightfoot, Soden). ‘‘Conciliari extraneo possent, 
reconciliari vero non alii quam suo,” Tertull. adv. Marc. v. το. 
But καταλλάσσειν is the word always used by St. Paul in Rom. 
and Cor. of reconciliation to God ; and of a wife to her husband, 
1 Cor. vil. ΤΙ. See on Eph. ἢ 16. 

τὰ πάντα, defined as it is presently after by εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 
κιτιλ., cannot be limited to the Church (as Beza), nor to men 
(especially the heathen, Olshausen), nor yet to intelligent beings 
generally. ‘“‘ How far this restoration of universal nature may be 
subjective, as involved in the changed perceptions of man thus 
brought into harmony with God, and how far it may have an 
objective and independent existence, it were vain to speculate,” 
Lightfoot. Compare ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων, Acts 11]. 21 ; also 
Rom. vill. 21. 

eis αὐτόν. If our interpretation of this were to be determined 
solely by considerations of language, we should have no hesitation 
in referring αὐτόν to the same antecedent as ἐν αὐτῷ, δι’ αὐτοῦ, and 
αὐτοῦ after σταυροῦ, that is Christ, and that, whatever subject we 
adopt for εὐδόκησε, but especially if πᾶν τὸ πλ. is not taken as the 
subject. On this interpretation the ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα eis 
αὐτόν would refer back to τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτὸν. .. ἔκτισται. If 
ἑαυτῷ was necessary in 2 Cor. v. 19, was it not more necessary 
here in order to avoid ambiguity ? 

It is, however, a serious objection to this view that we nowhere 
read of reconciliation to Christ, but only through Him to God. 


I. 20] PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST 221 


This objection is, indeed, somewhat weakened by the consideration, 
first, that this is the only place in which the reconciliation of τὰ 
πάντα 15 mentioned. In 2 Cor. v. 19 the words which follow ἑαυτῷ, 
Viz. μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς TA παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, κιτ.λ., show that 
κόσμος has not the wide significance of τὰ πάντα here. Secondly, 
that already in ver. 17 there is predicated of Christ what elsewhere is 
predicated of God, viz. δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα (Rom. xi. 35). 
Thirdly, here only is eis used instead of the dative after (azo) 
καταλλάσσειν. The difference is slight, and only in the point of 
view ; but the change would be accounted for by the reference 
to ver. 17. 

It deserves notice that some expositors who reject this view use 
language which at least approximates to the idea of reconciliation 
to Christ. Thus Alford, speaking of the ‘sinless creation,” says it 
“15 lifted into nearer participation and higher glorification of Him, 
and is thus veconciled, though not in the strictest yet in a very 
intelligible and allowable sense.” 

If πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα is the subject, and αὐτόν be viewed as 
= τὸν Θεόν, this antecedent would be supplied from πᾶν τὸ mA. 
in which, on this view, it is involved. (On the other hand, if 
the subject of εὐδόκησε is 6 Θεός understood, this, of course, is the 
antecedent. But the reference of αὐτόν (reflexive) to an unexpressed 
subject is harsh, notwithstanding Jas. 1. 12. 

εἰρηνοποιήσας belongs to the subject of the verb, the masc. 
being adopted κατὰ σύνεσιν, as in il. 19. This was inevitable, 
since the personal character of 6 εἰρηνοποιήσας could not be lost 
sight of. 

As it is Christ who is specified in Eph. ii. 15 as ποιῶν εἰρήνην, 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecum. and many moderns, although 
making ὁ Θεός the subject of εὐδόκησε, have so understood εἰρηνο- 
ποιήσας here “‘by the common participial anacoluthon”; but this 
is a very harsh separation of the participial clause from the finite 
verb, and introduces confusion amongst the pronouns. 

δι᾿ αὐτοῦ, repeated for the sake of emphasis, “by Him, I say.” 
This repetition, especially in so pointed a connexion with τὰ ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς and τὰ ἐν Tots οὐρανοῖς, still further emphasises the fact that 
angelic mediators have no share in the work of reconciliation, nay, 
that these heavenly beings themselves are included amongst those 
to whom the benefit of Christ’s work extends. 

The second δι᾽ αὐτοῦ is read by SAC Τὸ K P and most mss., Syr. (both) 
Boh., Chrys. Theodoret. It is omitted by BD*GL, Old Lat. Vulg. Arm. 


Eth., Theophyl. Ambrosiaster, a7, There would be a tendency to omit them 
as superfluous. 


εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. There is much 
diversity of opinion as to the interpretation of this passage ; 
**torquet interpretes,” says Davenant, “et vicissim ab illis tor- 


222 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [1 20 


quetur.” First, are we to understand τὰ πάντα as limited to 
intelligent creatures, or as including also unreasoning and lifeless 
things? Alford, Meyer, and many others adopt the latter view, 
which, indeed, Alford says is “clearly” the apostle’s meaning. 
Rom. viii. 19-22 is compared, where it is said that the κτίσις has 
been made subject to ματαιότης. But it is not easy to see how the 
reversal of this ματαιότης or the delivery from the δουλεία τῆς 
φθορᾶς can be called “reconciliation to God.” Reconciliation 
implies enmity, and this cannot be predicated of unreasoning and 
lifeless things. The neuter τὰ πάντα does not bind us to this 
interpretation, it is simply the most concise and striking expression 
of universality. But, further, what is meant by the reconciliation 
of heavenly beings? Many commentators suppose the meaning 
to be that even good angels have need to be in some sense 
“reconciled.” Calvin observes: “duabus de causis Angelos 
quoque oportuit cum Deo pacificari: nam quum creaturae sint, 
extra lapsus periculum non erant, nisi Christi gratia fuissent con- 
firmati . . . Deinde in hac ipsa obedientia quam praestant Deo, 
non est tam exquisita perfectio ut Deo omni exparte et citra 
veniam satisfaciat. Atque huc procul dubio spectat sententia ista 
ex libro Job (iv. 18). ‘In Angelis suis reperiet iniquitatem’ ; 
nam si de diabolo exponitur, quid magnam ἢ pronuntiat autem illic 
Spiritus Summam puritatem sordere, si ad Dei iustitiam exigatur.” 
Similarly De Wette, Bleek, Huther, Alford, Moule. The last 
named adopts Alford’s statement: “No reconciliation must be 
thought of which shall resemble owzs in its process, for Christ took 
not upon Him the seed of angels, nor paid any propitiatory penalty 
in the root of their nature... . But forasmuch as He is their 
Head as well as ours . . . it cannot be but that the great event in 
which He was glorified through suffering should also bring them 
nearer to God. . . . That such increase [of blessedness] might be 
described as a reconciliation is manifest: we know from Job xv. 15 
that ‘the heavens are not clean in His sight’; and 7d. iv. 18, ‘His 
angels He charged [charges] with folly.’” The general truth may 
be admitted without accepting Eliphaz the Temanite as a final 
authority. But imperfection is not enmity, and the difficulty is in 
the application of the term “reconciled” in the sense of “lifted 
into nearcr participation and higher glorification” of God. Dave- 
nant, followed by Alexander, says that Christ has reconciled 
angels “analogically, by taking away from them the possibility of 
falling.” 

It is hardly necessary to dwell on the opinion of Origen, that 
the devil and his angels are referred to; or on that of Beza, van 
Til, aZ., that τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς are the souls of those who died in 
the Lord before the coming of Christ, and who are supposed to 
have been admitted into heaven by virtue of His work which was 


I. 90] PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST 223 


to come. Neither opinion has any support in Scripture. (Bengel 
notes that πάντα ‘“continet etiam defunctos,” but does not suppose 
them referred to as in heaven.) 

A better view is that of Harless (adopted also by Reuss, 
Oltramare, a@/.), according to which the reconciliation proper 
applies only to τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, but the apostle adds τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρ., 
“not as if there were in heaven any real need of redemption, nor 
as if heaven were only added as a rhetorical figure, but because 
the Lord and Creator of the whole body, whose members are 
, heaven and earth, in restoring one member has restored the whole 
body ; and herein consists the greatest significance of the reconcilia- 
tion, that it is not only the restoration of the earthly life, but the 
restoration of the harmony of the universe” (Harless, “pf. p. 53). 

Ritschl thinks that St. Paul refers to the angels concerned in 
the giving of the law, to whom he believes the apostle here and 
elsewhere attributes a certain lack of harmony with the Divine 
plan of redemption (/ahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1863, p. 522f.). 
Compare ii. 15. 

Meyer’s solution is that the reference is to angels as a category, 
not as individuals. The original normal relation between God 
and these higher spirits no longer subsists so long as the hostile 
realm of demons still exists; whose power has indeed been 
broken by the death of the Lord, but which shall be fully destroyed 
at the Parousia. 

Hammond argues at considerable length that “heaven and 
earth” was a Hebrew expression for “this lower earth.” Chry- 
sostom takes the accusatives to depend on εἰρηνοποίησας. This 
is clear from his question, τὰ δὲ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς πῶς εἰρηνο- 
moinoe; His reply is that the angels had been made hostile to 
men, seeing their Lord insulted (or as Theodoret more generally 
says, on account of the wickedness of the many). God, then, not 
only made things on earth to be at peace, but brought man to the 
angels, him who was their enemy. ‘This was profound peace. 
Why then, says the apostle, have ye confidence in the angels? 
So far are they from bringing you near, that had not God Himself 
reconciled you to them, ye would not have been at peace. So 
Augustine (Zzchir. 62): “ pacificantur coelestia cum terrestribus, 
et terrestria cum coelestibus.” Erasmus adopts the same con- 
struction, amending the Latin version thus: “ pacificatis et 115 quae 
in terra sunt, et quae in coelis.” Bengel’s interpretation is similar, 
and he appears to adopt the same construction, for he compares 
Luke xix. 38, εἰρήνη ἐν οὐρανῷ: and comparing this again with 
Luke ii. 14, ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη, he remarks that what those in heaven 
ca'l peace on earth, those on earth call peace in heaven. ‘This 
construction does not seem to be open to any grammatical objec- 
tion, Only two instances of εἰρηνοποιεῖν are cited in the Lexicons, 


224. THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS |I. 21 


one from the Sept., Prov. x. 10, where it is intransitive ; the other 
from Hermes, ap. Stob. Ecl. Phys. p. 984, where the middle is 
used transitively, τότε καὶ αὐτὴ τὸν ἴδιον δρόμον εἰρηνοποιεῖται. As 
to the form of the compound, Aristotle uses ὁδοποιεῖν with an 
accusative, Ret. 1. τ. 2, δῆλον ὅτι εἴη ἂν αὐτὰ καὶ δδοποιεῖν. So 
λογοποιεῖν takes an accus., 6.9. συμφοράς, Lys. p. 165, 26; cf. 
Thue. vi. 38, a7. It is singular that this construction which yields 
an excellent sense has been entirely overlooked, and the interpreta- 
tion of Chrys., etc., met with the objection that ἀποκαταλλάξαι 

εἴτε τά... εἴτε τά Cannot mean to reconcile these two 
with one another. 

May it not be that the difficulty arises from attempting to turn 
- what is practically a hypothetical statement into a categorical 
assertion? St. Paul has in his mind throughout this part of the 
Epistle the teaching of the false teachers at Colossae, who knew, 
forsooth, all about the celestial hierarchy, with its various orders, 
some of which were doubtless regarded as not entirely in harmony 
with the Divine will. The apostle no more adopts their view here 
than he adopts their hierarchical system. The point on which he 
insists is that all must be brought into harmony, and that this is 
effected through Christ. 

Are we, however, justified in assuming that all τὰ ἐν τοῖς 
οὐρανοῖς (which is not necessarily equivalent to ‘in heaven”) are 
holy angels, or were so conceived by St. Paul? If there are 
‘other worlds than ours,” would not their inhabitants be reckoned 
as ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἢ 

21-23. Zhe Colossians are reminded that this reconciliation 
applies to them also, and that the object in view ts that they may be 
blameless in the sight of God. Lut this depends on their holding fast 
by the truth which they have been taught. 


21. We must first note the difference of reading in the last word of the 
verse. ἀποκαταλλάγητε is read by B, 17 (ἀποκατηλλάκηται) ; ἀποκαταλλα- 
yévtes, by D*G, the Latindgm Goth., Iren. (transl.) a7; but all other 
authorities have ἀποκατήλλαξεν. Lachm., Meyer, Lightfoot, Weiss adopt ἀπο- 
κατηλλάγητε, Which is given a place in the margin by Treg. WH. and Rey. 
It is argued that ἀποκαταλλαγέντες is an emendation, for grammatical reasons, 
of ἀποκατηλλάγητε (though a careless one, for it should be accus.). These two 
sets of authorities, then, may be taken together as attesting the passive. As 
between ἀποκατηλλάγητε and ἀποκατήλλαξεν, there is in favour of the former 
the consideration that, if the latter had been the original reading, the con- 
struction would be plain, and no reason would exist for altering it. Lightfoot 
regards this reading of B as perhaps the highest testimony of all to the great 
value of that MS. 

With the reading ἀποκατήλλαξεν there is a slight anacoluthon, there being 
no direct protasis. Examples, however, are not infrequent of a clause with 
δέ following a participle which indirectly supplies the protasis. The anaco- 
luthon might indeed be avoided by making ὑμᾶς depend on ἀποκαταλλάξαι ; 
but this would be more awkward ; and, besides, ver. 21 obviously begins a new 
paragraph, resuming the thought from which the apostle had digressed in 15. 


I. 22] PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST 225 


With the reading ἀποκατηλλάγητε it is possible to regard the clause νυνὶ 
δὲ--- θανάτου as parenthetical. ‘‘ And you who once were estranged (but now 
ye have been reconciled) to present you, I say,” the second ὑμᾶς repeating 
the first; and so Lachmann, Lightfoot, Moule. But, considering the im- 
portance of the clause, it is perhaps better (with Meyer) to understand the 
construction as an anacoluthon, the apostle having begun the sentence with 
the active in his mind, and, in a manner not unusual with him, passing to a 
more independent form of statement. This, too, seems much more in St. 
Paul’s manner than the parenthesis supposed by Lachmann. 


kat ὑμᾶς, “and you also,” ποτὲ ὄντας ἀπηλλοτριωμένους, “ who 
were once in a state of estrangement.” ὄντας expresses more 
forcibly the settledness of the alienation. For ἀπαλλοτριόω see on 
Eph. ii. 12. Here the remote object must be God, as of its opposite 
ἀποκαταλλάσσειν, and the word implies that they belonged to another 
(ἀλλότριος) (they were, in fact, subject to the ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότου»), 
and that this was the consequence of movement away from Him 
(ἀπο-). Alford understands the verb here objectively, “ banished ” ; 
but it seems more congruous to the whole context (ἀποκαταλ., 
ἐχθρούς) to understand it subjectively, “estranged (in mind).” 

ἐχθροὺς τῇ Stavota. ἐχθρούς is taken passively by Meyer, 
“invisos Deo.” But such a meaning is not justified either by the 
context here or by the use of the word elsewhere ; cf. Rom. viii. 7, 
TO φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς Θεόν. Even in Rom. v. 10, εἰ γὰρ 
ἐχθροὶ ὄντες κατηλλάγημεν τῷ Θεῷ, «.7.r., it is best understood 
actively ; there, as here, the sinner is spoken of as reconciled to 
God, not God to the sinner. Indeed, nowhere in the N.T. is the 
latter expression used. ‘The fact that it occurs in Clement, in the 
Const. Apost., and in the Apocrypha (Meyer), only makes its absence 
from the N.T. the more noticeable. As Lightfoot observes, “‘it is 
the mind of man, not the mind of God, which must undergo a 
change, that a reunion may be effected.” It was not because God 
hated the world, but because He loved it, that He sent His Son. 
In Rom. xi. 28, where the Jews are said to be ἐχθροί in a passive 
sense, this is not absolute, but κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, and they are at 
the same time ἀγαπητοί. Here, in particular, the active sense is 
required by the following τῇ διανοίᾳ, which Meyer indeed interprets 
as a “causal dative” (as if it were=d.a τὴν διανοίαν).. But in 
ἐχθρὸς τῇ διανοίᾳ the two notions must have the same subject 
(ὑμῶν not being added). Besides, if so intended, διανοίᾳ would 
surely be qualified by πονηρᾷ or the like. τῇ διανοίᾳ, then, is the 
dative of the part affected, as in ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ, Eph. iv. 18 ; 
καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, Matt. v. ὃ. 

ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς, the practical sphere in which the 
preceding characteristics exhibited themselves. A striking contrast 
to the description of the Christian walk in ver. to. 

22. νυνὶ δέ, “now,” 2.6. in the present order of things, not “αἱ 
the present moment.” ‘The aorist marks that the state of things 

15 


226 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 22 


followed a given event. It is correctly rendered by the English 
perfect. So ver. 26.; also Eph. ii. 13, i. 5; Rom. v. 11, vii. 6, 
Xi, 30; 31, xvi. 26; 2 Timi ΤΟ; 1 Pet.i. τὸ; 1. re, 25 ave ae 
the aorist similarly used in Plato, Symp. 193 A, πρὸ τοῦ, ὥσπερ 
λέγω, ἑ ἐν ἦμεν" νυνὶ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν διῳκίσθημεν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, and 
in Isaeus, De Cleon. her. 20, τότε μὲν. .. νυνὶ δὲ. . « ἐβουλήθη. 

ἀποκατηλλάγητε OF Sein 3 For reading and construc- 
tion, see above. 

ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, ἐν pointing to the medium of the 
reconciliation. The addition of τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, “consisting in 
His flesh,” has been variously accounted for. Beza, Huther, Barry, 
al., suppose the expression directed against Docetism ; but there is 
no direct evidence of this form of error so early, nor does there 
appear to be any allusion to it in this Epistle. Others, as Bengel, 
Olshausen, Lightfoot, supposed the words added to distinguish 
between the physical and the spiritual σῶμα, z.e. the Church. But 
this would be irrelevant. Marcion, however, omitted τῆς σαρκός 
as inconsistent with his views, and explained ἐν TO σώματι of the 
Church. ‘Tertullian, referring to this, says: “in eo corpore in quo 
mori potuit per carnem mortuus est, non per ecclesiam sed propter 
ecclesiam” (Adv. Mare. v. 19). (The most probable explanation 
is that the words have reference to the opinion of the false teachers, 
that angels who were without a σῶμα τῆς σαρκός assisted in the 
work of reconciliation (so Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, Soden). διὰ rod 
θανάτου expresses the manner in which the reconciliation was 
wrought. 


After θανάτου, αὐτοῦ is added in SAP a/., Boh. Arm. αἰ. 


παραστῆσαι ὑμᾶς. With the reading ἀποκατήλλαξεν this in- 
finitive expresses the final purpose ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 2, ἡρμοσάμην 
ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἀνδρί, παρθένον ἁγνὴν παραστῆσαι τῷ Χριστῷς Here, how- 
ever, the verb has its judicial sense ; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 14, 6 ἐγείρας 
τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἡμᾶς σὺν Το τοὶ ἐγερεῖ καὶ παραστήσει σὺν 
ὑμῖν. As this παραστῆσαι is thus included by God Himself in His 
work as the consequence of the reconciliation which He has 
accomplished, it follows that there is no room for anything to 
be contributed to this end by man himself. 

With the reading ἀποκατηλλάγητε two constructions are possible. 
First, it may be taken as dependent on εὐδόκησεν, νυνὶ δέ---θανάτου 
being parenthetical (Lightfoot). This makes the sentence rather 
involved. Or, secondly, the subject of παραστῆσαι and that of 
dmoxat. may be the same, viz. ὑμεῖς, “ut sisteretis vos.” Comp. 
Rom. vi. 13, παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ Θεῷ; 2 Tim. ii. 15, σπούδασον 
σεαυτὸν δόκιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ Med. ‘There is here no emphasis on 
the reflexive sense (the words being nearly equivalent to “that ye 
may stand”), so that ἑαυτούς is not required. 


I. 23] PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST 2517 


Lightfoot regards παραστῆσαι here as sacrificial, paraphrasing 
thus: “He will present you a living sacrifice, an acceptable offer- 
ing to Himself.” But this is reading into the words something 
which is not suggested, nor even favoured, by the context. Though 
ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους may seem to be borrowed from the vocabulary of 
sacrifice, the combination does not carry any such connotation 
with it. Comp. Eph. 1. 4 (ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς) εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ 
ἀμώμους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ; 10. ver. 27 (in connexion with the same 
verb παραστῆναι, where the figure is that of a bride); Jude 24, 
στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους. ἀνεγκλήτους, Moreover, 
is not suitable to sacrifice. It is a judicial term, and thus deter- 
mines the sense of the other two, παραστῆσαι being quite as much 
a judicial as a sacrificial word ; cf. Acts xxiii. 33. May we not add 
that the thought expressed in Lightfoot’s paraphrase has no parallel 
in the N.T.? For Rom. xii. 1 does not support the idea of God pre- 
senting believers to Himself as a sacrifice. Accordingly, this view 
is rejected by most commentators. The adjectives, then, are best 
understood of moral and spiritual character, the first expressing 
the positive aspect, the others the negative ; and κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ 
being connected with the verb, which requires such an addition, 
not with the adjectives, nor with the last only. 

23. εἴ ye, “assuming that.” See Eph. iii. 2. 

ἐπιμένετε, “ye abide, continue in,” a figurative use of ἐπιμένειν, 
occurring several times in St. Paul (only), and always with the 
simple dative ; cf. Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22, 23; 1 Tim. iv. 16. (In Acts 
ΧΙ. 43 the genuine reading is προσμένειν) The ém- is not 
intensive, as if ἐπιμένειν were stronger than μένειν (cf. 2 Cor. ix. 9; 
2 Tim. ii. 13; 1 Tim. ii. 15; Acts xviii. 20, ix. 43, xxviii. 12, 14). 
It adds the idea of locality. 

τῇ πίστει, 2.5. ὑμῶν, referring to i. 4. 

τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ ἑδραῖοι, the former word referring to the sure 
foundation (Eph. iii. 17), the latter to the firmness of the structure. 
ἑδραῖος occurs also in τ Cor. vii. 37, ὃς δὲ ἔστηκεν ἐν TH καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ 
ἑδραῖος, and in τ Cor. xv. 58, ἑδραῖοι γίνεσθε, ἀμετακίνητοι. 

μὴ μετακινούμενοι expresses the same idea on the negative side, 
but defined more precisely by the following words. It seems 
better taken as middle than passive, especially considering the 
present tense, “not constantly shifting.” The use of μή implies 
that this clause is conditioned by the preceding (Winer, ὃ 55. 1). 

ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος. As the three preceding expressions involve 
the same figure, Soden regards these words as connected (by 
zeugma) with the first two as well as with the third. 

τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, subjective genitive, the hope that belongs to 
the gospel. Comp. % ἐλπὶς τῆς κλήσεως, Eph. i. 18, iv. 4. 

οὗ ἠκούσατε, κιτιλ. Three points to enforce the duty of not 
being moved, etc. They had heard this gospel; the same had 


228 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 24 


been universally preached, and the apostle himself was a minister 
of it. πάλιν αὐτοὺς φέρει μάρτυρας, εἶτα τὴν οἰκουμένην ἅπασαν. .. 
καὶ τοῦτο εἰς τὸ ἀξιόπιστον συντελεῖ... . μέγα γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἣν τὸ 
ἀξίωμα λοιπὸν πανταχοῦ ἀδομένου, καὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὄντος διδασκάλου, 
Chrys. 

ev πάσῃ κτίσει, “in all creation,” RV., or “among every 
creature,” Coverdale, Lightfoot ; cf. Mark xvi. 15 (where, however, 
κτίσις has the article), κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. In 
both places the thought is of proclamation and of reception by 
faith ; and therefore we can hardly (with Lightfoot) bring in “all 
creation, animate and inanimate.” 

The expression κηρυχθέντος is probably not to be regarded as 
hyperbolical, but ideal, “it ‘was’ done when the Saviour . . . bade 
it be done” (Moule). 


After πάσῃ, τῇ is added in 8° D°K LP and most. It is absent from 
NAB CDE τ τὴ. etc. 


οὗ ἐγενόμην ἐγὼ Παῦλος διάκονος. Returning to his introduction 
of himself in ver. 1, the apostle prepares to say some further words 
of introduction of himself and his calling, before entering on the 
main topic of the Epistle. It is not for the purpose of magnifying 
his office that he thus names himself, but to impress on his readers 
that the gospel which they had heard, and which was proclaimed 
in all the world, was the very gospel that he preached. 

For διάκονος, 8* P read κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος. A combines 
both readings. 

24-29. The apostle’s own qualification as a minister of this 
gospel. To him has been given the privilege of knowing and pro- 
claiming this mystery which was hidden from former ages, namely, 
that of Christ dwelling in them. It ts his mission to make this 
known, and so to admonish and teach that he may present every man 
perfect. This he earnestly labours to do through the power of Christ. 

24. viv χαίρω. νῦν is not transitional (“quae cum ita sint,” 
Liicke), which would require οὖν, or the like, but refers to present 
time. Now as a prisoner “with a chain upon my wrist ” (Eadie). 
His active service as διάκονος is at present suspended, but the 
sufferings which it had brought upon him are a source of joy. 
Lightfoot understands it thus: ‘“‘ Now, when I contemplate the 
lavish wealth of God’s mercy, now when I see all the glory of 
bearing a part in this magnificent work, my sorrow is turned into 
joy.” But there is no indication of such a connexion of thought 
in the text. 


ὅς is prefixed to νῦν in D* G, Vulg. a/. (AV.). It is, doubtless, a repeti- 
tion of the first syllable of διάκονος, assisted by the desire to supply a connect- 
ing link between the sentences. For examples of similar abruptness compare 
2 (ὟΣ. wil. ΟἿΣ Lum. a. 020 


I. 94] THE MISSION OF THE APOSTLE 229 


ἐν. Compare Phil. i. 18, ἐν τουτῷ χαίρω : Rom. v. 3, καυχώμεθα 
ev ταῖς θλίψεσιν. 


After παθήμασιν, μου is added in Text. Rec. with &° and many cursives, 
Syr-Pesh. Arm. Eth. αἰ. 


ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, to be connected with παθήμασιν. His sufferings had 
been brought on him by his labours on behalf of the Gentiles, 
“‘propter vestrum gentium salutem,” Estius, and so with a kindly 
personal reference he represents them as endured on behalf of the 
Colossians, who shared in the benefit of his ministry. The article 
is not required before ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, τοῖς παθήμασιν being = οἷς πάσχω. 

ἀνταναπληρῶς This double compound is not found elsewhere 
in LXX or N.T. ἀναπληροῦν is found six times in N.T., twice in 
connexion with ὑστέρημα, τ Cor. xvi. 17; Phil. ii. 30. προσανα- 
πληροῦν also occurs twice with ὑστέρημα, but in a different sense, 
the former verb referring to a deficiency left by, the latter to one 
felt by, the persons mentioned. What modification is introduced 
in the meaning of ἀναπληροῦν by the addition of ἀντι- is disputed. 
ἀντι in composition with a verb does not imply “instead of 
another,” as Photius here takes it (τουτέστιν, ᾿Αντὶ δεσπότου καὶ 
διδασκάλου 6 δοῦλος ἐγώ, x.7.A.), but “ over against,” which may be 
either in opposition, as ἀντιλέγω, ἀντικεῖμαι, Or in correspondence, in 
turn, as ἀντιμετρέω, ἀντικαλέω (Luke xiv. 12), ἀντιλαμβανόμαι, etc. 
Here the ἀντι- has been understood by some as referring to 
διακονία, the suffering now taking the place of the former active 
service, or as indicating that the apostle’s afflictions were in 
response to what Christ had done for him. It is, perhaps, 
sufficient to say, with Wetstein, that it indicates the correspond- 
ence with the ὑστέρημα, “ ἀντὶ ὑστερήματος succedit ἀναπλήρωμα. 
(So Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Soden.) Lightfoot objects that 
this practically deprives ἀντι of any meaning, for ἀναπληροῦν alone 
would denote as much. He adopts Winer’s view, that ἀντανα- 
πληροῦν is used of one who “ alterius ὑστέρημα de suo explet,” 
or, as Lightfoot puts it, “that the supply comes from an opposite 
quarter to the deficiency.” Instances are cited in which this idea 
(or rather that of “a different quarter”) is expressed in the context, 
for example, Dion Cass. xliv. 48, ἵν᾽ ὅσον. . . ἐνέδει, τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς 
παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων συντελείας ἀνταναπληρωθῇ. The requirements of 
this passage seem to be fully met by the idea of correspondence, 
as will appear if we translate: “in order that . . . as much as was 
wanting . . . this might be correspondingly supplied.” And in 
the two instances in which ἀναπληροῦν is used with ὑστέρημα, the 
supply is from a different quarter from the deficiency, so that there 
is no more reason for including this idea in ἀνταναπλ. than in 
ἀναπλ. 

In Demosth. (De Symm. p. 182), τούτων τῶν συμμωριῶν ἑκάστην 


230 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 24 


διελεῖν κελεύω πέντε μέρη κατὰ δώδεκα ἄνδρας, ἀνταναπληροῦντας 
πρὸς τὸν εὐπορώτατον ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀπορωτάτους, the idea is that the 
poorer members should balance the rich in each μέρος, so as to 
equalise the pepy. It is this idea of balance that is expressed 
by the ἀντι-. 

Similarly the substantive ἀνταναπλήρωσις in Diog. Laert. x. 48, 
καὶ yap ῥεῦσις ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν σωμάτων ἐπιπολῆς συνεχὴς συμβαίνει, 
οὐκ ἐπίδηλος αἰσθήσει διὰ τὴν ἀνταναπλήρωσιν, 2.6. On account of 
the counter-supply, z.e. the supply which “ meets ” the deficiency. 

It is not, perhaps, an over-refinement to suggest that dvrava- 
πληρῶ is more unassuming than ἀναπληρῶ, since part of the force 
of the word is thrown on the idea of correspondence. 

τὰ ὑστερήματα. The plural is used because the afflictions are 
not regarded as a unity from which there is a definite shortcoming. 
Compare 1 Thess. ili. 10, τὰ ὑστερήματα τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, where 
the singular would suggest that their faith, as faith, was defective, 
while the plural suggests that there were points in which it needed 
to be made perfect. 

τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ. By two classes of commentators these 
words are understood to mean the afflictions which Christ endured. 
First, many Roman Catholic expositors, including Caietan, Bellar- 
mine, and more recently Bisping, find in the passage a support for 
the theory that the merits of the saints constitute a treasure of the 
Church from which indulgences may be granted. Estius, with his 
usual candour, while holding the doctrine to be Catholic and 
apostolic, yet judges that “‘ex hoc Ap. loco non videtur admodum 
solide statui posse. Non enim sermo iste, quo dicit Ap. se pati 
pro ecclesia, necessario sic accipiendus est, quod pro redimendis 
peccatorum poenis quas fidelis debent, patiatur, quod forte 
nonnihil haberet arrogantiae; sed percommode sic accipitur, 
quomodo proxime dixerat ‘gaudeo in passionibus meis pro 
vobis’ ut nimirum utraque parte significet afflictiones et perse- 
cutiones pro salute fidelium ipsiusque ecclesiae promovendae 
toleratas.” It has been more fully replied (e.g. by Lightfoot) 
that the sufferings of Christ may be regarded from two different 
points of view, either as satisfactoriae or aedificatoriae. In the 
former sense there can be no ὑστέρημα, Christ’s sufferings and 
those of His servants are different in zd, and therefore in- 
commensurable. But in this sense θλίψις would be an unsuitable 
word, and, in fact, it is never applied in any sense to Christ’s 
sufferings. In the second point of view, however, that of minis- 
terial utility, “it is a simple matter of fact that the afflictions 
of every saint and martyr do supplement the afflictions of Christ. 
The Church is built up by repeated acts of self-denial in successive 
individuals and successive generations ” (Lightfoot). 

It is no doubt true that these “continue the work which Christ 


I. 24] THE MISSION OF THE APOSTLE 231 


began” (compare 2 Cor. i. 5; 1 Pet. iv. 13). But to say this is 
not to say that there was any “shortcoming” in the afflictions of 
Christ. His work, including His sufferings, was absolutely com- 
plete; and so far as others carry it on, their work is included in 
His (Phil. iv. 13). To say that He left something “behind” is to 
slur over the meaning of ὑστέρημα, which does not mean some- 
thing left behind, but a want of sufficiency. Nowhere in the N.T. 
is anything of the kind suggested. And the Colossians were the 
last to whom St. Paul would use, without explanation, a phrase 
which would be so open to misconception, as tending to foster the 
delusion that either saints or angels could add anything to Christ’s 
work. If affliction could do so, why not (it might be said) self- 
imposed suffering, asceticism, or gratuitous self-denial? Moreover, 
can it be supposed that St. Paul, who calls himself the least of 
saints, and not meet to be called an apostle, would express him- 
self thus without some qualification? Lightfoot would mitigate 
the apparent arrogance by the remark that “the present tense, 
ἀνταναπληρῶ, denotes an inchoate, not a complete act.” ‘The 
term “inchoate” does not seem to be justified. The present, 
indeed, denotes an act continuing and therefore not finished, but 
not incomplete as far as the present moment is concerned. Com- 
pare the instances of ἀναπληρῶ itself: Matt. xiii. 14, ἀναπληροῦται 
αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία, κιτ.λ. : I Cor. xiv. 16, 6 ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον 
τοῦ ἰδιώτου: 2 Cor. ix. 12, οὐ μόνον ἐστὶ προσαναπληροῦσα τὰ 
ὑστερήματα τῶν ἁγίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περισσεύουσα, K.T.A. Compare 
also the present οἵ πληροῦν, Gal. ν. 143; Eph. v. 18; Col. iv. 17. 
A third view is adopted by Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Augustine, and most expositors, ancient and modern, According 
to this, “the afflictions of Christ” are the sufferings of His Body, 
the Church, so called because “He really felt them.” So 
Augustine on Ps. Ixi. says of Christ, “qui passus est in capite 
nostro et patitur in membris suis, id est, nobis ipsis.” And Leo, 
quoted by Bohmer (ap. Eadie), “passio Christi perducitur ad 
finem mundi,” etc. This view is adopted amongst late com- 
mentators by Alford, Ellicott, De Wette, Olshausen. But the 
notion that Christ suffers affliction in His people is nowhere 
found in the N.T. Acts ix. 4, “‘ Why persecutest thou Me?” is not 
an instance. ‘There the persecution of His saints is represented as 
directed against Him, but He is not represented as suffering from 
it. The idea that the glorified Christ continues to suffer, and that 
“His tribulations will not be complete till the last pang shall have 
past” (Alf.) (an idea which, as Meyer observes, would seem to 
imply even the thought of Christ’s dying in the martyrs), is incon- 
sistent with the scriptural representations of His exalted state. It 
is true that He sympathises with the afflictions of His people; but 
sympathy is not affliction, nor can the fact of this sympathy justify 


232 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 24 


the use of the term “afflictions of Christ,” without explanation, to 
mean the afflictions of His Church. This would be particularly 
unsuitable in the present connexion, for it would make St. Paul 
say that he rejoiced in His sufferings because they went to 
increase the afflictions of Christ. 

It remains that (with Meyer, Soden, a/.) we take the expression 
to signify the apostle’s own afflictions ; and to this interpretation 
the readers are naturally led, first, by. the word θλίψις, which is 
never used of Christ’s sufferings, but often of the apostle’s ; and, 
secondly, by the defining words ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, which are best 
connected with τῶν θλίψεων. For if the writer had intended them 
to be taken with the verb, he would doubtless have written ἀντανα- 
πληρῶ ἐν τῇ σαρκί pov. It is said, indeed, that the words are 
placed here for the sake of the antithesis to τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ. 
But there would be no purpose served by emphasising this 
antithesis here, and to do so would only distract the attention of 
the reader. 

Meyer, however, while adopting this view of 6A. τοῦ Xp., 
connects ἐν τῇ σ. μου with the verb. On the other hand, Steiger, 
joining these words with 6A. rod Xp., connects both with the follow- 
ing: “the sufferings which Christ endures in my flesh for His 
body.” 

That St. Paul should call his own sufferings in the service of 
Christ the afflictions of Christ in his flesh, is quite in accordance 
with other expressions of his. For instance, in 2 Cor. i. 5 he 
speaks of the sufferings of Christ overflowing to him, περισσεύει 
τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς. In Phil. iii. το he speaks of 
knowing κοινωνία τῶν παθημάτων αὑτοῦ “συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ 
αὐτοῦ. Again, 2 Cor. iv. 10, πάντοτε τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ 
σώματι περιφέροντες. 

The form of expression, then, need not cause any difficulty. 
The question what St. Paul means by calling his own troubles the 
afflictions of Christ in his flesh is a different one, and may be 
answered by saying that Christ’s afflictions are regarded as the 
type of all those that are endured by His followers on behalf of 
the Church. So Theodoret: Χριστὸς τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κατε- 
δέξατο θάνατον... καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ὑπέμεινε, καὶ ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος 
ὡσαύτως ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς ὑπέστη τὰ ποικίλα παθήματα. Compare Matt. 
XX. 23, τὸ μὲν ποτήριόν μου πίεσθε. 

ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ. ‘The use of this designation was Σὰ 
ably suggested by the mention of σάρξ. ὑπέρ is clearly not “i 
the place of,” but “on behalf of”; cf. ver. 7. 

ὅ ἐστιν ἣ ἐκκλησία. The antithesis of σῶμα and σάρξ rendered 
necessary this explanation of the words σώματος αὐτοῦ. Besides, 
ἐκκλησία was required by the following ἐγενόμην διάκονος. 

6 ἐστιν has not the same shade of meaning as qris ἐστιν 


I. 25, 26] THE MISSION OF THE APOSTLE 238 


(1 Tim. iii. 15, ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ. . . ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία). The former 
is equivalent to zd est; the latter to “and such is.” 

25. ἧς ἐγενόμην διάκονος resumes the οὗ éyev. διάκ. of ver. 23, 
carrying out now the active side of the ministry, as ver. 24 the 
passive. 

κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν. ‘According to the stewardship in the 
house of God.” On oix. cf. Eph. 1. 10. Here=the office or 
function of a steward, so that he is an οἰκονόμος Θεοῦ, cf. 1 Cor. ix. 
17, οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι, and Luke xvi. 2. So the apostles and 
other ministers of the Church are called οἰκονόμοι, 1 Cor. iv. 1, 7; 
Tit. i. 7; see also 1 Pet. iv. το. The Church is οἶκος τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
1 Tim. iii. 15. Chrysostom, a/, take oix. in the sense “ dispensa- 
tion,” which is inconsistent with τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι. 

εἰς ὑμᾶς, cf. ver. 24. Connected by Scholefield and Hofmann 
with the following πληρῶσαι. But compare Eph. 11. 2, τὴν 
οἰκονομίαν τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς δοθείσης μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς : and Rom. 
XV. 16, τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναί με 
λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη. 

πληρῶσαι, not infin. of design, but explanatory οἵ οἰκ. τὴν 
δοθ. κιτιλ. The verb is found in a similar connexion Rom. xv. 109, 
ὥστε pe... μεχρὶ τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ. 6 λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ is frequently used by St. Paul for the 
pOsmel (Eacon xiv. 50; 2 Come Τὴ iv. Ζ; Thess. ii 13 ; 
compare also Acts iv. 31, a/.). The sense then is: ‘to carry out 
to the full the preaching of the gospel”; “ad summa perducere: 
Paulus ubique ad summa tendit,” Bengel. There is doubtless a 
reference to St. Paul’s special office as the apostle of the Gentiles, 
by virtue of which he gave full development to the “ word of 
God.” This is suggested by δοθεῖσάν por cis ὑμᾶς. 

Beza takes the phrase to mean ‘‘to fulfil the promise of God” 
(cf. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21), which does not suit the context. Fritzsche 
understands it as meaning “to complete the teaching begun by 
Epaphras.” See on Lk. viii. 11. 

26. τὸ μυστήριον. Lightfoot observes: “This is not the only 
term borrowed from the ancient mysteries, which St. Paul employs 
to describe the teaching of the gospel,” and he mentions τέλειον, 
ver. 28; μεμύημαι, Phil. iv. 12; and (perhaps) σφραγίζεσθαι in 
Eph. i. 14. There is, he says, an intentional paradox in the 
employment of the image by St. Paul, since the Christian mysteries 
are not, like the heathen, confined to a narrow circle, but are freely 
communicated to all. But as μυστήριον in the singular is never 
used by Greek writers in connexion with the ancient mysteries, 
and on the other hand appears to have been an ordinary word for 
“secret” (see note on Eph. i. 9), there seems to be no ground 
for the assumption that the term is borrowed from the “ mysteries.” 
The plural is used thrice only by St. Paul, viz. 1 Cor. iv. 1, 


234 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 27 


ΧΙ]. 2, xiv. 2; but occurs in the Gospels, Matt. xiii. 11 ; Luke viii. 
to. As to μεμύημαι, although the verb may have been originally 
borrowed from the mysteries, St. Paul found it already in use in 
the sense in which he employs it; cf. Alciphron, il. 4, κυβερνᾷν 
μυηθήσομαι. For τέλειος, see on ver. 28. 

TO ἀποκεκρυμμένον... νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη. These are the two 
characteristics of a μυστήριον in the N.T. Compare Rom. xvi. 25, 
μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου, φανερωθέντος δὲ viv. πρὸ 
τῶν αἰώνων, used in τ Cor. 11. 7 οἵ God’s purpose, could not properly 
have been said of its concealment. ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων, κιτιλ. ἀπό here 
is of time, being opposed to viv. So am αἰῶνος, Acts iil. 21, xv. 
18. An αἰών includes many yevead; compare Eph. ii. 21. The 
fact of the long concealment and recent disclosure of the mystery 
is not without point here ; it explains the acceptance of the errors 
which the apostle is combating. 

27. ἐφανερώθη. The anacoluthon gives more emphasis to the 
mention of the φανέρωσις ; cf. ver. 22. 

τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ ; 2.5. Christians in general, not only the 
apostles and prophets of the N.T., as many both of the older 
and later commentators take it, in agreement with Eph. ii. 5. 
Cod. G even adds ἀποστόλοις (and F, of course, agrees). 

Δ Vs οἷς, “quippe quibus.” ἠθέλησεν ὃ Θεός. It was God’s free 
choice, so that the γνωρίζειν was only to those to whom He chose 
to make it known. 

τί τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης. Compare Rom. ix. 23, ἵνα γνωρίσῃ 
τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ : and Eph. i. 18, iii. τ6. τί joined to 
a substantive of quantity signifies “how great.” πλοῦτος (in- 
differently masculine and neuter in St. Paul) is a favourite term in 
these Epistles as applied to the dispensation of grace. ἡ 

δόξα is not a mere attribute of πλοῦτος (Erasmus), nor of 
μυστηρίου (Beza), but is the principal idea; it is of the δόξα τοῦ 
μυστηρίου that it is said that it has shown itself in rich measure. 
It is the glorious manifestation of God’s dealings contained in this 
μυστήριον, “magniloquus est in extollenda evangelit dignitate,” 

Calvin. σεμνῶς εἶπε καὶ ὄγκον ἐπέθηκεν ἀπὸ Av ers διαθέσεως, 
ἐπιτάσεις ζητῶν ἐπιτάσεων, Chrys. The latter, however, understands 
the words of the glorious results of the gospel amongst the 
heathen. 

ἐν tots ἔθνεσιν. It was amongst these especially that this 
πλοῦτος was displayed; φαίνεται ἐν ἑτέροις, πολλῷ δὲ πλέον ἐν 
τούτοις ἡ πολλὴ τοῦ μυστηρίου δόξα, Chrys. For the construction 
cf. Eph 3.18. 

ὃ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν spiv. The antecedent may be either 
μυστήριον or πλοῦτος. The former (Vulg. Chrys.) is that generally 
favoured by expositors: ‘‘the mystery consists in this, that Christ 


᾽) 


is ἐν ὑμῖν"; and this seems on the whole the most natural. 


Ι. 38] THE MISSION OF THE APOSTLE 235 


Μυστήριον is the principal idea in the context (ver. 26, li. 2), τὸ 
πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης being subsidiary to it. Again, the “mystery” is 
not something distinct from the riches of the glory of it; those to. 
whom the former is revealed are made acquainted with the latter. 
This view also agrees with Eph. 11. 6, where the μυστήριον τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ is defined as εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα, κιτιλ. The 
strongest objection to this view is that it seems to make 6 ἐστιν, 
κιτιλ., a merely parenthetical definition, whereas it carries on the 
thread of the discourse. But this is more apparent than real; it is 
the thought of the μυστήριον that runs through the whole, and the 
clause is not parenthetical, but carries on the description of the 
μυστήριον begun in ver. 26, ἐν ὑμῖν. The parallelism with ἐν τοῖς 
ἔθνεσιν favours the interpretation “‘among you,” rather than “‘in you.” 

ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξηςς This δόξης is an echo of the former, but 
this does not require us to give both the same signification. 
Oltramare regards this, not as an apposition to ὃ Xp., but as a 
second thought succeeding the former in a lively manner, and 
joining on to it, “It is Christ in the midst of you! the hope of 
glory!” 

τί τὸ πλοῦτος is read by AB D’*K L (τὸ πλοῦτος without τί, G), 
_while 8 C P have the masc. τίς ὁ πλ. 

6 ἐστὶν is read by ABGP17 47 67%, probably Lat. Vulg. 
(quod est); ὅς ἐστιν by 8 CD KL and most, Chrys. Theodoret, a@/, 
With the latter reading, ὅς is attracted to the gender of Χριστός. 
But this interferes with the sense, for whether the antecedent be 
πλοῦτος OF μυστήριον, it 15 not Χριστός that is predicated, but 
Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν. 

28. ὃν ἡμεῖς καταγγέλλομεν. “ And Him we proclaim.” Him, 
z.e. not Χριστόν only, but Xp. ἐν ὑμῖν. ἡμεῖς, emphatic, in opposition 
to the heretical as well as to the Judaising teachers ; ‘‘ we,” himself 
and Timothy in particular. 

νουθετοῦντες . . . Kal διδάσκοντες, . . “admonishing ... 
and teaching.” These, as Meyer observes, correspond to the 
μετανοεῖτε kal πιστεύετε Of the gospel message. νουθεσία μὲν ἐπὶ 
τῆς πράξεως, διδασκαλία δὲ ἐπὶ δογμάτων. 

πάντα ἄνθρωπον, thrice repeated, emphasises the universality of 
the gospel as taught by St. Paul (111. 11), in opposition to the 
doctrine of an intellectual exclusiveness taught by the false 
teachers ; probably also it points to the fact that each man 
individually was an object of the apostle’s care, τί λέγεις ; πάντα 
ἄνθρωπον ; vat, φησι, τοῦτο σπουδάζομεν, εἰ δὲ μὴ γένηται, οὐδὲν πρὸς 
ἡμᾶς, Theophylact. 

ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, 2.5. μετὰ πάσης σοφίας καί συνέσεως, Chrys. αΖ, 
expressing the manner of the teaching. The Latin Fathers 
understand the words as denoting the object of the teaching ; so 
Moule: “in the whole field of that holy wisdom,” etc. But in 


236 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [I. 29 


the N.T. the object of διδάσκειν is put in the accusative, not in the 
dative with ἐν. 

There is no contradiction to 1 Cor. i. 17, ii. 1-16, for there is 
a Θεοῦ σοφία (1 Cor. ii. 7), a divine philosophy, the source of 
which is indicated in ch. 11. 3; cf. Eph. 1. ὃ, τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς 
ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ. Compare ver. 9. and 11. 16. 

ἵνα παραστήσωμεν, aS in ver. 22, refers to presentation before ἃ 
tribunal, not as a sacrifice. 

τέλειον. This is one of the words noted by Lightfoot as 
“probably borrowed from the ancient mysteries, where it seems 
to have been applied to the fully instructed, as opposed to the 
novices,” and in 1 Cor. 11. 6, 7 he finds the same allusion. ‘This 
technical sense of τέλειος as applied to persons does not seem 
sufficiently made out; in the passages cited by Lightfoot, with one 
exception, it is not to the persons, but to the mysteries, τελεταί, 
that the term is applied. The one exception is Plato, Phaedr. 
249 C, τελέους ἀεὶ τελετὰς τελούμενος τέλεος ὄντως μόνος γίγνεται, 
which cannot be regarded as proving the usage. But even if this 
be granted, there seems no sufficient reason for introducing this 
sense here, where what is in question is not complete initiation, or 
knowledge, but maturity of faith and spiritual life. In this sense 
the word is used by St. Paul, Eph. iv. 13, μέχρι καταντήσωμεν εἰς 
ἄνδρα τέλειον : Phil. iil. 15, ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν : 1 Cor. 
XIV. 20, ταῖς φρεσὶ τέλειοι γίνεσθε. Compare Heb. ν. 14; Matt. 
v. 48, xix. 21. And in the present Epistle, iv. 12, ἵνα σταθῆτε 
τέλειοι Kal πεπληροφημένοι ἐν παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. Observe 
also here the defining addition τέλειον ἐν Χριστῷ: For the use of 
the term in early Christian writers to denote the baptized as 
opposed to the catechumens, see Lightfoot’s note. 

29. εἰς 6, viz. to present every man, etc. 

kat κοπιῶ. 1 not only καταγγέλλω, «.7.A., but carry this to the 
point of toiling. Hofmann understands it as meaning, “I become 
weary,” comparing John iv. 6; Apoc. 11. 3, where, however, the 
verb is perfect. The sense, moreover, would be quite unsuitable 
here in connexion with the ἀγωνίζεσθαι in the power of Christ. 
The verb is frequently used by St. Paul of his toilsome labours in 
the Churches; ¢.g. 1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. iv. 11; Phil, τ ΤΟΣ ποῦ 
the labours of others; Rom. xvi. 12; 1 Cor. xvi. 16; 1 Thess. 
v. 12. But he also uses it of the labour of the hands; 1 Cor. 
iv. 12; Eph. iv. 28. The change to the singular has its ground in 
the personal experience described. 

ἀγωνιζόμενος. Compare τ Tim. iv. 10, εἰς τοῦτο κοπιῶμεν 
καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα. The reference here is to an inward ἀγών, as is 
shown by the following context ; cf. iv. 12. 

κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ. Not by his own strength, but by that 
which Christ supplies. τὸν αὐτοῦ κόπον καὶ ἀγῶνα τῷ Χριστῷ 


11. 1] HIS ANXIETY FOR THE CHURCHES 237 


ἀνατιθείς, Oecum. But Chrys. Theoph. understand the αὐτοῦ of 
God, against the immediate context. ἐνεργουμένην, middle, as always 
in St. Paul. Fritzsche on Rom. vii. 5 observes: “ἐνεργεῖν, vim 
exercere de personis, ἐνεργεῖσθαι ex se (aut suam) vim exercere de 
Feous collocavit, Galt vo ΟΣ Col. 20 1 Thess. 1 13°; αὐ ut 7.2 
Passivo . . . nunquam Paulus usus est.” 

ἐν δυνάμει, “in power”; cf. Rom. i. 8; 2 Thess. i. 11. Some 
understand this of the power of working miracles, which is quite 
inappropriate to the context, according to which the reference is to 
κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμενος. 

11. 1-7. The apostle’s care and anxtety are not limited to those 
Churches which he had himself founded, or to which he had person- 
ally preached, but extended to those whom he had never seen. He is 
anxious that they should be confirmed-tn the faith and united tn love, 
and, moreover, may learn to know the mystery, that 1s, the revealed 
will of God. Jt is no new doctrine they are to look for, but to seek 
to be established in the faith which they have already been taught, and 
to live in conformity thereto. 

1. Tdép. ‘Striving, I say, for,” etc. The general statement 
κοπιῶ ἀγωνιζόμενος is Supported by this special instance of his 
anxiety for the Colossian Church ; and thus although γάρ is not 
merely transitional, the transition to the personal application is 
naturally effected. 

θέλω yap ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι. So 1 Cor. xi. 3. More frequently οὐ 
θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν. That either phrase does not necessarily com- 
mence a new section is clear from 1 Cor. xi. 3; Rom. xi. 25. 

ἡλίκον, a classical word, not found in Sept. or Apocrypha, and 
in the N.T. only here and Jas. iii. 5. 

ἀγῶνα ἔχω. As he was now a prisoner this ἀγών can only be 
an inward one. It is not to be limited to prayer (iv. 12), but 
includes anxiety, etc. 

ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. Here, as often, the reading varies between ὑπέρ 
and περί. The former is that of SABCD"P; the latter of 
DIG KL. 

kal τῶν ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ (sec SA B*CD*GK LP). 

The Laodiceans were probably exposed to the influence of the 
same heretical teaching as the Colossians. Hierapolis is probably 
alluded to in the words καὶ ὅσοι, x«.7.A., see iv. 13. Kal τῶν ἐν 
Ἱεραπόλει is actually added in some mss. (10 31 73 118) and 
in Syr-Harcl.* It is clearly a gloss from iv. 13. 

kat ὅσοι, κιτιλ. καί here introduces the general after the 
particular, as in Acts iv. 6 and often. It is only the context that 
decides whether this is the case or whether a new class is intro- 
duced. Here there would be no meaning in mentioning two 
particular Churches which had known him personally, and then in 
general all who had not known him. The inference is therefore 


238 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [11. 2 


certain that he had never visited Colossae, and this agrees with the 
incidental references in the Epistle as well as with the narrative in 
the Acts. See on αὐτῶν, ver. 2. 

ἑώρακαν (Alexandrian) is better supported than the Attic 
ἑωράκασι. The spelling with ὦ is rather better supported here 
than that with o. 

ἐν σαρκί does not qualify the verb, as if “seeing in the flesh” 
were contrasted with “seeing in the spirit” (δείκνυσιν ἐνταῦθα ὅτι 
ἑώρων συνεχῶς ἐν πνεύματι, Chrys.), but goes with πρόσωπόν pov, 
giving vividness to the expression. Naturally it is implied that 
they had a knowledge of him, though not personal. 

2. ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν at καρδίαι αὐτῶν. ‘That their hearts may 
be strengthened.” It can hardly be doubted that this is the 
meaning of παρακαλεῖν here, where there is no mention of, or 
allusion to, troubles or persecutions. The sense ‘comforted, 
consoled” is, indeed, defended by Meyer, Ellicott, Eadie, a/. 
Ellicott observes: “surely those exposed to the sad trial of 
erroneous teachings need consolation”; but there is no trace of 
this view in the Epistle, nor would such consolation be the prime 
object of the apostle’s prayer and anxiety. No; what made him 
anxious was the danger they were in of being carried away by this 
erroneous teaching. It was not consolation that was required, but 
confirmation in the right faith. For this sense of παρακαλεῖν cf. 
τ Cor. xiv. 31 (RV. marg.). 

αὐτῶν. We might have expected ὑμῶν, but αὐτῶν was suggested 
by the preceding ὅσοι. This is decisive as to the Colossians being 
included in the ὅσοι ; for if excluded there, they are excluded here, 
and the writer returns to the Colossians in ver. 4 (ὑμᾶς) in a most 
illogical manner: “This I say about others who do not know me, 
in order that no man may deceive you.” 

συμβιβασθέντες. “ United, knit together,” the common meaning 
of the verb, and that which it has elsewhere in this Epistle (ver. 19) 
and in Eph. iv. 16, g.v. In the Sept. it always means to “ instruct,” 
cf. τ Cor. ii. 16 (quotation) and Acts xix. 33. It is so rendered 
here by the Vulg. “instructi.”. The nominative agrees with the 
logical subject of the preceding, 


It is read by NABCD*P αἰ, Vulg. Syr. (both). The genitive συμβιβ- 
ασθέντων is read in ἐξ D° Καὶ L and most mss., but is obviously a grammatical 
correction. 


ἐν ἀγάπῃ. ‘In love,” which is the “bond of perfection” (iii. 14). 

καὶ εἰς expresses the object of the συμβιβ. ; connected by καί 
because the verb contains the idea of motion. 

πᾶν πλοῦτος τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως. ‘‘ All riches of full 
assurance of the understanding.” ‘Full assurance” seems the 
most suitable sense for πληροφορία, and it is also suitable in every 


11. 9] HIS ANXIETY FOR THE CHURCHES 239 


other place in the N.T. where the word occurs (1 Thess. 1. 5; 
Heb. vi. 11, x. 22). “Fulness” would also be suitable, except in 
i Thess. i. 5. The word does not occur in Sept. or Apocr., nor in 
classical authors. On σύνεσις cf. i. 9. It has an intransitive sense, 
and hence never takes a genitive of the object ; here it appears to 
mean the faculty of judging. He desires their judgment to be 
exercised with full certainty. De Wette observes that πλοῦτος 
expresses a quantitative, πληροφορία a qualitative, characteristic. 

εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν, k.t.A., seems best taken as parallel to the preceding 
eis, so that it emphatically points out the special object on which 
the σύνεσις is to be exercised. Some, however, connect this with 
παρακληθῶσιν, on the ground that ἐπίγνωσις implies as an ante- 
cedent condition the συμβιβ. «7A. For ἐπίγνωσις, “full know- 
ledge,” see Eph. 1. £7. 

τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ. If this reading is adopted, there are three 
conceivable constructions: (4) Χριστοῦ in apposition to Θεοῦ, 
(ὁ) Χριστοῦ dependent on Θεοῦ, (c) Χριστοῦ in apposition to 
μυστηρίου’ The first (adopted by Hilary of Poitiers, also by 
Steiger and Bisping) is generally rejected, either on account of 
the context (EIl.) or because the phrase is destitute of Pauline 
analogy (Meyer, Moule, Lightfoot). But it appears to be inad- 
missible on other grounds. ΤῸ point τοῦ Θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, taking 
these in apposition and thus identifying ὃ Θεός and Χριστός, is 
obviously impossible, as it would mean, not that Θεός could be 
predicated of Χριστός, but that Χριστός could be predicated of 
6 @eds, thus ignoring the distinction of Persons. On the other 
hand, if we point τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ, and understand ‘the God 
Christ” (according to the rendering suggested, though not ac- 
cepted, by Moule), the expression seems inconsistent with strict 
Monotheism. It defines Θεοῦ by the addition Χριστοῦ, and 
therefore suggests that other definitions are possible. ὁ Θεὸς 
πατήρ is not analogous, for two reasons ; first, πατήρ only suggests 
υἱός, and, secondly, πατήρ expresses a relation proper to the Deity. 
Ellicott, who considers the construction not indefensible, takes it 
to mean “of God, even of Christ.” This is rather to suppose 
μυστηρίου supplied before Χριστοῦ, which is certainly untenable. 
But this is clearly not what he means, and it suggests that he 
hesitated to accept either of the other renderings. 

According to the third view, Χριστοῦ is in apposition to 
μυστηρίου, so that Christ personally is the mystery of God 
(Ellicott, Lightfoot, Moule, α4). If this is the apostle's meaning, 
he has expressed himself very obscurely. As μυστήριον is an 
abstract name, when it is explained as a person, we should expect 
ὅ ἐστιν as ini. 24, 27 ; 1 Cor. ui. 11. Lightfoot understands the 

“mystery ” not as “Christ,” but “‘ Christ as containing in Himself 
all the treasures of wisdom,” and in illustration of the form of 


240 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II. 2 


the sentence compares Eph. iv. 15, εἰς αὐτόν... ὅς ἐστιν ἡ 
κεφαλή, Χριστός, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα, κιτιλ. This passage, it is 
obvious, adds another example of the use of ὅς ἐστιν in such 
sentences, and it can hardly be said to furnish a parallel to 
Lightfoot’s interpretation of ἐν ᾧ, for in Eph. iv. 15 a full stop 
‘might have been placed after Χριστός without impairing the 
figure. Moreover, the apostle has given a different definition of 
the pvor. in 1. 27 (to which he again alludes in iv. 3), and it is 
hard to suppose that he would give a different definition within a 
few lines, for different this certainly is. ‘The second translation 
mentioned above, ‘‘the God of Christ,” has its parallel in the 
phrase, ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and in Eph. i. 17, ὁ Θεὸς 
τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This construction is adopted by 
Meyer and v. Soden. The addition of Χριστοῦ is explained by 
the consideration that it is only through Christ that God’s plan in 
this mystery is carried out; it is only because and in so far as 
God is the God of Christ that this μυστήριον could exist and be 
revealed. Meyer adds, “ He that has recognised God as the God 
of Christ, to him is the Divine μυστήριον revealed.” This, after 
all, is not quite satisfactory, and requires us to read into the text 
more than is expressed. 

If the shorter reading τοῦ Θεοῦ (omitting Χριστοῦ) is adopted, 
the difficulty disappears ; but the difficulty is not so obvious as to 
tempt the ordinary copyist to omit the word. 


The different readings are as follow :— 

(1) τοῦ Θεοῦ. Without any addition. D® P 37 67** 71 80 116. 
Adopted by Griesbach, Tisch. 2, Olsh., De Wette, Alford. 

(2) τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ. B, Hilary of Poitiers (De 7γ2η. ix. 62, ‘fin 
agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi,” adding, ‘‘ Deus Christus sacramentum 
est”). Adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, and Lightfoot without a comma 
after Θεοῦ ; by Tisch. ὃ, RV. with a comma, also by Harless (221. p. 458), 
Ellicott, Meyer, and v. Soden. 

(3) τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν Χριστός. D* ‘*Dei quod est Christus,” de, 
Vigilius Thaps. So Augustine, De Z7iz. xiii. 24, ‘* Dei quod est Christus 
Jesus.” 

(4) τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς (add τοῦ, AC 4) Χριστοῦ, N* AC 4, Vulg. in Codd. 
Amiat. Fuld. f. Boh. (add ᾿Ιησοῦ, Lagarde). 

(5) τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, N° two of Scrivener’s MSS. and a 
corrector in the Harclean Syriac. 

(6) τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 47 73, Syr-Pesh. (ed. princeps and 
Schaaf). 

(7) τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rec. Text), D? KL most 
cursives, Syr-Harcl. (text), Theodoret, etc. 

Isolated readings are— 

(8) τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ, Cyril. Thes. p. 287. 

(9) τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ, Clem. Alex. v. 10. 12, and with τοῦ before ἐν, 
17. So Ambrosiaster, ‘‘ Dei in Christo.” τοῦ Χριστοῦ is given by Tisch. 
from his MS. of Euthalius, but with the remark, ‘‘sed non satis apparet.” 

As far as documentary evidence goes (4) seems the best attested, and is 
probably the source of (5) (6) (7). But it is most probably an attempt ta 


11. 3] HIS ANXIETY FOR THE CHURCHES 241 


remove the difficulty of the simpler reading (1) or (2). Of these (2) is pre- 
ferred by the critics above named, as accounting for all the rest, (1) the 
witnesses for which are later, being supposed to have originated from an 
attempt to remove the difficulty of the former reading. Meyer thinks that the 
original reading must have involved some dogmatic difficulty, which (4) does not. 

The short reading, τοῦ Θεοῦ (1), would account for the others, but the 
attestation of it is not sufficiently early. Wescott and Hort suspect some 
corruption. 


8. ἐν ᾧ The antecedent is probably μυστηρίου, not LOGE 
What the apostle i is dwelling on is the greatness of the “mystery ” 
(i. 27), and the importance of the knowledge of it, in opposition 
to the supposed wisdom of the false teachers ; hence the statement 
that “all the treasures,” etc., are contained in it. This is con- 
firmed by the use of ἀπόκρυφοι, which corresponds to μυστήριον. 
So Alford, Eadie, Meyer, Soden, De Wette, etc.; but Ellicott, 
Lightfoot, and many comm. refer the ᾧ to Christ. With this 
latter reference, the wisdom and knowledge are those possessed 
by Christ as a treasure which He communicates. With the 
reference to pvor. the terms have an objective sense, these being 
characteristics of the Divine plan. These treasures St. Paul 
calls ἀπόκρυφοι, probably in allusion to the pretended hidden 
wisdom of the false teachers, which nevertheless was merely 
superficial and concerned external observances, whereas the true 
Christian wisdom was inward and profound. ‘These treasures of 
wisdom are not “kept concealed,” ἀποκεκρυμμένοι, they are 
“hidden, laid up,” ἀπόκρυφοι; but capable of being discovered. 
For this reason, as well as on account of the position of the 
word, ἀπόκρυφοι is not to be construed with εἰσίν as the 
direct predicate,—a construction which would require it to come 
next to εἰσί. Meyer and Alford take the word as attributive, 
“all the secret treasures.” The absence of the article is against 
this, although not perhaps fatal; since, as Alford observes, oi 
ἀπόκρυφοι would imply that there were other treasures, only those 
that are secret being contained, etc. The position of the word, 
however, suggests that it is a secondary predicate (Ellicott, Light- 
foot, v. Soden, aZ.), “all the treasures, etc., as hidden treasures,” 
7.6. “hiddenly,” ὥστε zap αὐτοῦ δεῖ πάντα αἰτεῖν. Chrys. “quo 
verbo innuitur quod pretiosum et magnificum est in Christo non 
prominere, aut protinus in oculos incurrere hominum carnalium, 
sed ita latere ut conspiciatur tantummodo ab illis quibus Deus 
oculos dedit aquilinos, id est, spirituales ad videndum,” Davenant, 
quoted by Ellicott. The word occurs in connexion with θησαυροί in 
Isa. xlv. 3, δώσω σοι θησαυροὺς σκοτεινοὺς ἀποκρύφους : also 1 Macc. 
1. 23, ἔλαβε τοὺς θησαυροὺς τοὺς ἀποκρύφους. On the Gnostic use of 
the word to designate their esoteric writings, see Lightfoot’s note.! 

1 Mr. Charles compares Book of Enoch, 46. 3, ‘“‘the Son of Man who 


reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden.” 
16 


242 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II 4, 5 


The expression θησαυρὸς σοφίας is used by Plato, Phzleb. 15 E, 
ds τινα σοφίας εὑρηκὼς θησαυρόν, and by Xen. Jem. iv. 2. 9, 
ἄγαμαί σον διότι οὐκ ἀργυρίου και χρυσίου προείλου θησαυροὺς 
κεκτῆσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ Ἶ σοφίας. 

σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως. ‘These terms occur together, Rom. xi. 33, 
and several times in Eccles. Sept. ‘While γνῶσις is simply z7- 
tuitive, copia is ratiocinative also. While γνῶσις applies chiefly 
to the apprehension of truths, σοφία superadds the power of 
reasoning about them and tracing their relations,” Lightfoot. 
Augustine’s distinction is that σοφία is “intellectualis cognitio 
aeternarum rerum”; γνῶσις, “rationalis temporalium,” so that 
the former pertains to contemplation, the latter to action (De 
Trin. xii. 20, 25). This, however, is quite opposed to usage. 
Aristotle, “2 21. JVic. 1. τ, opposed γνῶσις to πρᾶξις. And in 1 Cor. 
ΧΙ]. 2, St. Paul connects γνῶσις with the apprehension of eternal 
μυστήρια. 

4. τοῦτο λέγω. In this expression τοῦτο often refers to what 
follows, but with ἵνα it refers to what precedes ; cf. John v. 34. 
τοῦτο is not to be limited to ver. 3. Ver. 5 shows that 1-3 are 
included, if, indeed, the reference does not extend further back. 


δέ is omitted in &* A* (apparently) B, but added in δὲ A°™ CDK LP, 
and apparently all other authorities. Weiss considers it certainly genuine. 
ἵνα μηδείς. Son* ABCD Pai. ἵνα μή τις, 8° KL, most MSS. 


παραλογίζηται. In N.T. only here and Jas. 1. 22; frequent in 
Sept. and later Greek writers. It applies primarily to false reckon- 
ing, and thence to fallacious reasoning; hence, παραλογισμός, 
a fallacy or paralogism; cf. ἀπάτῃ τινι παραλογισάμενος ὑμᾶς, 
Aeschines, p. 16, 33. 

ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ. “ By persuasive speech,” “a persuasive style,” 
Moule. ‘The word occurs in Plato, Zheaet. p. 162 E (πιθανολογίᾳ 
τε καὶ εἰκόσι) ; the verb πιθανολογεῖν in Arist. Eth. Wic. i. 1; also 
Diog. Laert. x. 87, a7. In classical writers the sense is only that of 
probable reasoning as opposed to demonstration ; but see Demosth. 
928, 14, λόγους θαυμασίως πιθανούς, and ἡ πιθανολογική = “ the art 
of persuasion,” Arrian, Z/zct. 1. 8. 7. 

Compare Sits Paul, t Cor. 11. 4, οὐκ ἐν πειθοῖς σοφίας λόγοις, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος. πιθανολογία expresses the subjective 
means of persuasion, the personal influence; παραλογ. the objective, 
the appearance of logic. 

5. εἰ yap καί. The καί after ei does not belong to the whole 
clause introduced by εἰ, but emphasises the word immediately 
following ; cf. 2 Cor. iv. 16, x1. 6. 

TH σαρκὶ ἄπειμι. It has been inferred from this that St. Paul 
had been at Colossae ; but without reason. The same expression, 
indeed, occurs 1 Cor. v. 3; but this proves nothing, yap. 


II. 5] HIS ANXIETY FOR THE CHURCHES 243 


ἀλλά introduces the apodosis, when it is contrasted with a 
hypothetical protasis ; cf. Rom. vi. 5 ; 1 Cor. vill. 6; 2 Cor. v. 16, 
al. τῷ πνεύματι, “in spirit,” not “ by the spirit,” as Ambrosiaster 
and Grotius, “ Deus Paulo revelat quae Colossis fierent.” The 
antithesis is the common one of body and spirit ; cf. 1 Cor. v. 3, 
ἀπὼν TO σώματι, παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι. 

σὺν ὑμῖν. Stronger than ἐν ὑμῖν, expressing union in a common 
interest. 

χαίρων καὶ βλέπων. There is no need to suppose a logical 
transposition, or to separate the participles as if χαίρων meant 
“rejoicing at being with you in the spirit” (Meyer, Alford). The 
apostle’s joy may have been due to many circumstances, and this 
joy led him to contemplate further their orderly array. 

ὑμῶν τὴν τάξιν. The pronoun is placed emphatically first, not 
so much to accentuate this τάξις as an advantage which they 
possessed over others, as because the apostle’s interest was in 
them personally and in the τάξις only as belonging to them. 

τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ στερέωμα. Both terms are supposed by 
Hofmann, Lightfoot, Soden, a/., to contain a military metaphor, 
perhaps suggested by St. Paul’s enforced companionship with the 
praetorian guard, στερέωμα being rendered by Lightfoot “solid 
front, close phalanx” ; by Soden, “ bulwark,” “ Bollwerk.” τάξις is 
frequently used of military array, e.g. Xen. Anad. 1. 2. 18, ἰδοῦσα 
τὴν λαμπρότητα καὶ τὴν τάξιν TOD στρατεύματος ἐθαύμασεν : Plut. Vir. 
Pyrrh, 16, κατιδὼν τάξιν τε καὶ φυλακὰς καὶ κόσμον αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ 
σχῆμα τῆς στρατοπεδείας ἐθαύμασε. στερέωμα is found in the Sept. 
Ps, xviii. 2 ; Gen. i. 6, αἰ. 1 Macc. ix. 14 is quoted in support of 
the military sense, εἶδεν 6 “Iovdas ὅτι Βακχίδης καὶ τὸ στερέωμα 
τῆς παρεμβολῆς ἐν τοῖς δεξίοις. 

But neither word has this military sense of itself, but from the 
context, and here the context suggests nothing of the kind. τάξις 
is used equally of the organisation of a state or a household, e.g. 
Demosth. p. 200, 4, ταύτην τὴν τάξιν αἱρεῖσθαι τῆς πολιτείας. 
Compare also Plato, Gorgias, p. 504 A, τάξεως... καὶ κόσμου 
τυχοῦσα οἰκία. St. Paul has it again, 1 Cor. xiv. 40, πάντα. .. 
κατὰ τάξιν γινέσθω. Here the idea of a well-ordered state lies 
much nearer than that of an army. The apostle rejoices in the 
orderly arrangement of the Colossian Church. The opposite state 
would be ἀταξία, and of this he finds some instances in Thessalonica, 
where some walked ἀτάκτως, and he reminds them ὅτι οὐκ ἠτακτή- 
σαμεν ἐν ὑμῖν (2 Thess. ili. 6, 8, 11). 

With στερέωμα τῆς πίστεως compare Acts xvi. 5, ἐστερεοῦντο τῇ 
πίστει, and τ Pet. v. 9, ᾧ ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ τῇ πίστει. It is most 
natural to take the word here as=the firm structure of your faith, 
7.6. the solidity of your faith. ὅτε πολλὰ συναγαγὼν συγκολλήσεις 
πυκνῶς Kal ἀδιασπαστῶς, τότε στερέωμα γίνεται, Chrys. 


244 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [11.8,7 


We gather from this that the Church at Colossae was still 
substantially sound in the faith, and it is instructive to observe 
how here as in other Epistles St. Paul is careful to commend what 
he finds deserving of commendation. 

It is worthy of notice that d e translate as if they read ὑστέρημα 
for στερέωμα “ quod deest necessitatibus fidei vestrae.” Augustine 
agrees, quoting, “id quod deest fidei vestrae” (Zp. 149, Joh. 98). 
So also Ambrosiaster. 

6. ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε. “As, then, ye received, ze. from 
your teachers ”= καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ “Exadpa, 1. 7 ; καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε, 
ver. 7. Compare 1 Thess. iv. 1, καθὼς παρελάβετε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὸ 
πῶς Oe, κατ Δ ; I Cor, xy. I, 2, ΧΙ. 25; Gal. 1. Ὁ, 12; ΕΠ ΠΣ ὦ) 
(ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε). 

Ellicott, however, and Moule understand it as meaning that 
they received ‘Christ A/zmse/f, the sum and substance of all 
teaching.” The sense is good, but does not agree so well with the 
usage of παραλαμβάνειν or with the context, in which we have the 
contrast between true and false teaching in relation to the Christian 
walk (καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε, κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρ.). 

τὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Κύριον. As St. Paul does not use the 
phrase ὃ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, this is naturally divided into τὸν Χριστόν 
and Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον, so that τὸν Xp. is the immediate object of 
mapad. ‘This is confirmed by the frequency of 6 Χριστός in this 
Epistle, and by the designation of the object of the Christian 
preaching as ὃ Xpiords in Phil. 1. 15, 17. Further, it will be 
observed that in what follows up to ill. 4 it is not the notion 
of Ἰησοῦς or of Κύριος that is prominent, but that of Χριστός. 
The Christ, rather than the gospel, is specified as the object 
of the instruction, because ‘the central point of the Colossian 
heresy was the subversion of the true idea of the Christ,” Lightfoot. 
᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Κύριον adds to the official designation the name of Him 
to whom it belongs, ‘even Jesus the Lord.” Compare Eph. iv. 
20, 21. The position of τὸν Κύριον after ᾿Ιησοῦν (instead of the 
usual τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν) points to the two elements of which the 
true doctrine of the Christ consists, viz. first, the recognition of the 
historical person, Jesus ; and, secondly, the acceptance of Him as 
the Lord. 

ἐν αὐτῷ περιπατεῖτε. This phrase does not occur elsewhere, but 
it corresponds to the idea of τὰς ὁδούς μου ἐν Χριστῷ, τ Cor. iv. 17 ; 
ζῶντας ἐν Χριστῷ, Rom. vi. 11, etc. 

7. ἐρριζωμένοι kal ἐποικοδομούμενοι. The propriety of the tenses 
is to be observed ; the settled state, which is the antecedent condi- 
tion of περιπατεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ, is expressed by the perfect ; the continual 
development which is always advancing, by the present. ‘The three 
figures are disparate, the apostle’s thoughts being occupied with 
the lesson to be enforced, without regard to the consistency of his 


ΤΠ 7] EXHORTATION TO STEADFASTNESS 245 


metaphor ; see Eph. iii. 18. Some commentators put a stop at 
περιπατεῖτε, connecting the participles with the following ver. ὃ 
a construction which leaves ἐν αὐτῷ π. very isolated. 

The ἐπι- in ἐποικοδ. probably does not convey “the accessory 
idea of the foundation,” which would not agree well with ev; 
besides, it is clear from περιπατεῖτε and ἐρριζ. that the apostle has 
not before him the distinct figure of a building, but is using the 
word as St. Jude does, ver. 20, ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ 
ὑμῶν πίστει, in the derived ethical sense “being built up.”  Light- 
foot remarks that in this Epistle and that to the Ephesians, Christ 
is represented rather as the binding element than as the foundation 
of the building ; see Eph. 11. 20. 

βεβαιούμενοι qualifies the idea of both the preceding participles. 
The present gives the idea “being more and more stab.ished.” 

τῇ πίστει is taken by Meyer and Lightfoot as an instrumental 
dative, “by your faith.” “Faith,” says the latter, “is, as it were, 
the cement of the building.” But this is to press unduly the 
metaphor in éorxod., which, as we have seen, is not intended any 
more than the other two verbs to convey a definite picture. There 
is no question here of the instrument, and τῇ πίστει is better taken 
as a dative of reference, as in Jude 20. There πίστις was that 
which needed βεβαίωσις. καθὼς ἐδιδάχθητε, “even as ye were 
taught,” z.e. so that ye continue firm and true to the lessons which 
ye were taught by Epaphras ; cf. 1. 7, not “taught to be established 
by or in your faith.” 

περισσεύοντες ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ. ‘ Abounding in thanksgiving.” 
If ἐν αὐτῇ is read after περισσ., then ἐν edy. is “with thanksgiving,” 
although even with this reading some expositors interpret “in your 
faith abounding in thanksgiving.” 


τῇ πίστει without ἐν, BD* 17 a/., Vulg., Ambrosiaster, Theoph. ἐν τῇ 
πίστει, 8% D°K LP, most mss., Chrys. a/, ἐν πίστει, AC 67%. ἐν would 
readily come in from the impression made by the repeated ἐν in the context. 

ἐν αὐτῇ is added after περισσεύοντες in Β 10)" Κα L most mss., Syr-Pesh. 
Arm., Chrys. Also δ D* 1 def, Vulg. Syr. mg. have ἐν αὐτῷ. The words 
are absent from §* AC 17 and some other mss., Amiat. Fuld. Eth. The 
words are omitted in the text of RV. but retained in the marginal reading. 
They may have been added originally from a recollection of iv. 2, where we 
have ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ. This is rather more probable than that they 
were omitted because περισσεύοντες was thought to be sufficiently defined by 
ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ. So Weiss. 


8-15. The apostle has reason to know (having, no doubt, been 
so informed by Epaphras) that there are amongst the Colossians 
teachers who are propagating mischievous heresies, dangerous to the 
faith, and inculcating precepts not consistent with thetr position as 
members of Christ’s kingdom. These teachers make a professsion of 
philosophy, but it ts a mere system of deceit and of human origin, 
and so far 15 tt from being an advance on what they have been 


246 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II. 8 


taught that it really belongs to a more elementary stage of progress. 
Ye, he tells them, have been already made full in Christ, tn whom 
dwells the whole fulness of the Godhead, and who is therefore far 
above all these angelic beings of whom they speak. Ye need no cir- 
cumctsion of the flesh, for ye have received in Christ the true circum- 
cision of the spirit. By Him ye have been raised from death to life, 
and His work is complete; He has wholly done away with the 
bond that was against you. 

8. βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται. ‘‘ Beware lest there be anyone,” 
etc. or τὶς with the participle and article, cf. Gal. i. 7, εἰ μή τινές 
εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς. As it gives prominence to the person 
and his action, it appears to point to some particular person whom 
the apostle has in view but does not wish to name. Compare 
Ignat. Smyrn. 5, ὅν τινες ἀγνοοῦντες ἀρνοῦνται. . . Ta δὲ ὀνόματα 
αὐτῶν... οὐκ ἔδοξέ μοι ἐγγράψαι. The future indic. ἔσται indi- 
cates the reality of the danger, cf. Mark xiv. 2, μήποτε ἔσται θόρυβος, 
and Heb. iil. 12, βλέπετε μήποτε ἔσται & τινι ὑμῶν, κιτιλ. ὑμᾶς 
before ἔσται is somewhat emphatic: “you who are such persons 
as I have thus commended.” 


This order, ὑμᾶς ἔσται, is that of BC K LP; but δαὶ Α Ὁ have ἔσται ὑμᾶς; 
which, as the more obvious order, was more likely to be written in error. 


6 συλαγωγῶν. A later Greek word (not indeed found till after 
St. Paul) used by Aristaenetus (ii. 22) with οἶκον in the sense 
“plunder,” in which sense it is understood here by Chrys. 
Theodoret, and some moderns. Theodoret supplies τὴν πίστιν, 
Theophyl. τὸν νοῦν. If this were the sense here, the object could 
hardly be omitted. But the proper meaning of the word seems to 
be ‘‘to carry off as spoil.” So Heliodorus, Aezh. x. 35, ὃ τὴν ἐμὴν 
θυγάτερα συλαγωγήσας. And this meaning corresponds with that 
of the analogous compounds, δουλαγωγεῖν, cxevaywyeiv, λαφυραγω- 
yetv. Von Soden remarks that it also corresponds better with 
the idea of a destroyed bond in ver. 14 to suggest that they might 
again be brought into bondage; οἷ, Gal. v. 1. The Vulgate 
“decipiat ” is very inadequate. 

διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας. A term not occurring elsewhere in the 
N.T., and no doubt adopted here because it was used by the false 
teachers themselves. ‘The combination of it here with κενὴ ἀπάτη 
indicates that the sense is nearly “his philosophy, so called, which 
is a vain deceit.” Compare ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις, 1 Tim. vi. 20. 
Chrysostom remarks : ἐπειδὴ δοκεῖ σεμνὸν εἶναι τὸ “ τῆς φιλοσοφίας ” 
προσέθηκε καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης. That the word φιλοσοφία was in use 
in Jewish circles appears from Philo and Josephus. The former 
applies the word to the religion of the Jews and the law of Moses, 
perhaps for the purpose of giving dignity to them in the eyes of 
Gentile readers. He speaks of ἡ κατὰ Μωῦσῆν φιλοσοφία (De Aur. 


II. 8] WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 247 


Nom. 39), ἣ πάτριος φιλοσοφία (Leg. ad Cat. 23), ἡ ᾿Ἰουδαϊκὴ 
φιλοσοφία (7. 33). Josephus calls the three Jewish sects 
τρεῖς φιλοσοφίαι (Ant. xvii. I. 2). It is clear from the 
connexion with κενῆς ἀπάτης that St. Paul is not condemning 
philosophy in general, which, indeed, would be quite beside his 
purpose. 

kat κενῆς ἀπάτης. The absence of the article shows that this 
is not a different thing from ἡ φιλοσοφία, but is a characteristic of 
it. ἀπάτη is opposed to λόγος τῆς ἀληθείας, 1. 5, and to σοφία καὶ 
γνῶσις, il. 3. 

κατὰ Thy παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Probably to be connected 
with the immediately preceding words rather than with συλαγωγῶν. 
The teaching of the Colossian false teachers was essentially tradi- 
tional and esoteric. ‘The Essenes, their spiritual predecessors, as 
well as the Gnostics, subsequently claimed to possess such a 
source of knowledge. The oath taken by the full members of the 
former sect bound them not to communicate any of their doctrines 
to anyone otherwise than as he himself had received them, and, 
further, to guard carefully the books of their sect and the names 
of the angels (Josephus, Le//. Jud. 1. ὃ. 7 ; Lightfoot, pp. 89, 90). 
Compare the designation Kabbala, “tradition,” applied by the 
Jews to their later mystic theology. 

κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα Tod κόσμου. “According to the rudiments 
of the world” (?). This κατά with the following κατὰ Χριστόν may 
perhaps be best connected with συλαγωγῶν, as the ideas they 
introduce have a different logical relation to the main idea, and 
ov κατὰ Χριστόν is too brief to form the antithesis to the other two 
κατά Clauses. 

τὰ στοιχεῖα (= Gal. iv. 3) (originally = “letters of the alphabet”) 
is generally understood by modern commentators as meaning 
“elementary teaching,” ‘the ABC of religious instruction” ; 
compare παιδαγωγός in Gal. Then τοῦ κόσμου would mean having 
reference to mundane, or material, not spiritual things (Alford, 
Lightfoot, a/.). But De Wette takes κόσμος as = ‘‘ humanity,” as 
the subject of this instruction (John ii. 16; 2 Cor. v. 19). So 
Oltramare. Meyer, on the other hand, understands by it ‘the 
non-Christian world,” “rudiments with which the world concerns 
itself” (= Bleek, Weiss; a/.). 

Neander judges that a comparison of all the Pauline passages 
and the Pauline association of ideas favour our understanding the 
phrase as denoting the earthly, elsewhere termed τὰ σαρκικά. 
Hence, ii. 20, στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου and κόσμος may, he thinks, be 
considered as synonymous, 


An entirely different interpretation has been adopted by several recent 
commentators. According to this, τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου are the personal 
elemental spirits. According to Jewish ideas, not only were the stars 


248 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS {II. 9 


conceived as animated by spiritual beings,’ but all things had their special 
angels, In the Book of Enoch, 82. 1off., it is said with reference to the 
angels of the stars that they keep watch, that they may appear at their appointed 
times, in their proper orders, etc. There are, first, the four leaders who divide 
the seasons, then the twelve leaders of the orders (taxiarchs), who divide 
the months ; and for the 360 days there are heads over thousands (chiliarchs), 
who divide the days. Anyone who is curious about the matter may learn 
the principal names in the book itself. In 18. 15 we read of stars which 
suffer punishment because they have transgressed the commandment of God 
as to their appearing. In the Book of Jubilees, cap. 2, amongst the 
creations of the first day are the Angels of the Presence, but also the angels of 
the winds, of clouds, of cold and heat, of hail, hoarfrost, thunder, etc. 
Perhaps Ps. civ. 4 may have some relation to this conception ; certainly it 
seems to be illustrated by the Apocalypse, vii. I, 2, xiv. 18, xvi. 5 (τοῦ 
ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων), xix. 17 ; and by the interpolation in John v. 4. It is 
obvious that the term properly used of the elements ruled by these spirits 
might readily be applied to the spirits themselves, especially as there was no 
other convenient term. It agrees with this that in Gal. iv. 1 ff. those who 
were δεδουλωμένοι ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου are compared to those who are 
under ἐπίτροποι καὶ olxovéuoc,—a comparison which suggests personality in 
the former. And again, 26. 8, 9, δουλεύειν τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς appears to 
be equivalent to δουλεύειν τοῖς στοιχείοις, K.T.A. 

In the present passage the observance of times and seasons, etc., is κατὰ τὰ 
στ. τ. K., not κατὰ Xp., a contrast which does not agree well with the concep- 
tion of στ. as elements of instruction. This view of τὰ στοιχεῖα gives special 
pertinence to the proposition which follows, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ, x.7.d., and ver. 10, 
bs ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξ Ἐρασίίις. Ritschl defends "this personal 
interpretation of στοιχεῖα at length (Aechifertigung τε. Versdihnung, 3rd ed. 
ii, p. 252), but needlessly limits the meaning to the angels of the lawgiving. 
Spitta adopts the more general reference (Der Zweite Brief des Petras u. 
der Brief des Judas, 1885, 263 ff.). He quotes from the Zest. Levi, c. 4, a 
passage which speaks of the burning up of τὰ ἀόρατα πνεύματα, just as 
2 Pet. ili. 10 speaks of the burning up of στοιχεῖα. ‘This view is unreservedly 
adopted by Kiihl, the recent editor of the Epistles of Peter and Jude in 
Meyer’s Kommentar, and by v. Soden in his comment on the present 
Ene ge 3 

9. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα. See i. 19; and on 
πλήρωμα, Lightfoot’s dissertation, Colossians, p. 323 ff. 

τῆς θεύτητος: “of the Godhead,” ze. of the Divine nature. 
θεότης, the abstract of θεός, must not be confounded with θειότης, 
which is used with propriety in Rom. 1. 20, and which means, not 
the essence, but the quality of divinity. θεότης is found in Lucian, 
Lcarom. ἴσος τὸν μέν τινα πρῶτον Θεὸν ἐπεκάλουν, τοῖς δὲ τὰ δεύτερα 
καὶ τὰ Ἐρ ἃ ἔνεμον τῆς θεότητος ; and in Plutarch, 7207. p. 41τ5 0, 
ἐκ δὲ δαιμόνων ὀλίγαι μὲν ἔτι χρόνῳ πολλῷ δι ἀρετῆς καθαρθεῖσαι 
παντάπασι θεότητος μετέσχον. ‘The δαίμονες were always θεῖοι, but a 
few became in course of time θεοί, The same author, JZor. p. ὃ 574, 
says, πᾶσιν Αἰγυπτίοις θειότητα πολλὴν καὶ Menno. μαρτυρήσας, 


1A notion which, it may be remembered, was shared by the great 
astronomer Kepler. 

2In Zest. Solomonzs (Fabricius, Cod. Pseudep. Vet. Test. i. 1047) we read: 
ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν τὰ λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα, οἱ κοσμοκράτορες TOU κόσμου τούτου, ἀπάτη, ἔρις, 
κλώθων, ζάλη,πλάνη, δύναμις, κιτιλ. This, however, is a very late document. 


II. 10] THEIR COMPLETENESS IN CHRIST 249 


z.e.a Divine faculty. The Versions generally, including the Vulgate, 
fail to mark the distinction, doubtless for want of a word to express 
θεότης. The word dectas was a later coinage (not quite according 
to Latin analogy). Trench quotes from Augustine, De Οἴου. Dev, 
vii. § 1, “ Hanc divinitatem, vel, ut sic dixerim dezfafem: nam et 
hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius 
transferant id quod illi θεότητα appellant.” 

σωματικῶς, “ bodilywise, corporeally.” Not ἀσωμάτως as in the 
λόγος before the Incarnation, but in His glorified body σῶμα 
τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, Phil. iil. 21. Chrysostom draws attention to the 
accuracy of the expression, μὴ νομίσῃς Θεὸν συγκεκλεῖσθαι, ὡς ἐν 
σώματι. 

This interpretation, which is that adopted by most modern 
commentators, is the only one tenable, but many others have been 
suggested. Theophylact and Oecumenius took the word to mean 
“essentially,” οὐσιωδῶς, 2.6. not merely as an influence, as in the 
saints or as in the prophets. So Calvin, Beza, and, more recently, 
Olshausen and Usteri. But the word cannot have this meaning. 

Augustine (Z/7s¢t. 149) understands it to mean “really” not 
“typically,” “vere non umbratice,” not ‘umbratiliter,” as in the 
temple made with hands ; and so many moderns (including Benge] 
and Bleek), comparing ver. 17, where σῶμα is contrasted with 
σκιά, But there the idea is that of a body which cast a shadow, 
and the passage does not justify our rendering the adverb “really.” 

Others, again, understanding πλήρωμα of the Church, take 
σωματικῶς to mean, “so that the Church is related to Him as His 
body ” (Baumgarten-Crusius, a/.), thus making the body of Christ 
dwell in Christ, instead of Christ in the body. 

10. kai ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι. ‘And ye are in Him 
made full.” Alford, Ellicott, and Lightfoot render, “ye are in 
Him, made full,” regarding the clause as containing two predica- 
tions. But the connexion seems to require the fact to be 
emphasised, that it is “in Him” that the πεπληρωμένον εἶναι rests ; 
for on this depends the inference that nothing more is lacking 
in our relation to God. The πεπληρωμένοι obviously corresponds 
with the πλήρωμα. Christ is πεπληρωμένος: ye being in Him 
share in His πλήρωμα, and are therefore yourselves πεπληρωμένοι. 
Compare John 1. τό, ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες 
ἐλάβομεν : Eph. ui. 9, va πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
also zb:d. iv. 13 and i. 23. 

ὃς ἐστιν. So 8 ACK LP and nearly all mss. with the Latin efg 
Vulg. and Chrys. Theodoret, Δ But BDG 47* with d have 6 ἐστιν, 
perhaps a correction made on ‘the supposition that αὐτῷ referred to πλήρωμα, 
or by oversight c was lost before ec. Lachmann adopts it, placing καὶ 
to ἐν αὐτῷ in a parenthesis. The image, however, would be quite confused 


if the πλήρωμα were represented as the head; ἡ κεφαλή is always Christ. 
Besides, we should be obliged to refer ἐν ὦ also to πλήρωμα, and this would 


250 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [11. 11 


not yield any tolerable sense, Ewald, adopting ὅ ἐστιν, takes it as= “‘ scilicet,” 
coiparing 1. 24, 27 and i il. 17; but this would require τῇ κεφαλῇ. 

ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας. Tle is the head of all those angelic 
powers to whose mediation the false teachers would teach you to seek. As 
they are subordinate to Christ, ye have nothing to expect from them which is 
not given you in full completeness in Christ. 

11. ἐν ὦ kat περιετμήθητε. “In whom also ye were (not ‘are,’ 
as AV.) circumcised.” ‘Ye have received the circumcision of the 
heart, by which ye have put off the whole body of the flesh, and 
therefore ye have no need of the symbolical circumcision of the 
flesh.” 

The aorists point to the time of their reception into the 
Christian Church by baptism. 

περιτομῇ, “with a circumcision,” not “ the circumcision.” 

ἀχειροποιήτῳ, “ not wrought by hands,” not physical: cf. Mark 
xiv. 58; 2 Cor. v.1; and Eph. 11. 11, where we have the other side of 
the contrast, οἱλεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομὴ ἐν 
σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου. The idea of spiritual circumcision is frequent 
in the O.T.; see note on the passage in Eph. In St Paul; 
compare Rom. ii. 28; Phil. 11. 3. At first sight it might appear 
from this clause that the Colossians had been tempted like the 
Galatians to submit to circumcision. But in that case we should 
find, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, some direct condemnation 
of the practice; whereas in 16-23 there is no reference to it. 
Possibly the allusion here is to some claim to superiority on the 
part of the false teachers. 

ἐν TH ἀπεκδύσει. ἐν specifies that in which the περιτομή con- 
sisted. The substantive ἀπέκδυσις has not been found in any 
earlier writer (for the verb, see ver. 15). It expresses a complete 
putting off and laying aside, and was probably chosen with refer- 
ence to the figure of circumcision. ‘The connexion requires it to 
be understood passively, not “ye have put off,” but ‘was put off 
from you.” 

τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, Ze. “the body which consists in the 
flesh,” ‘the fleshly body,” so that we are no more ἐν τῇ σαρκί 
(Rom. vii. 5, viii. 8, 9). The change is ideally represented as 
complete, which it is in principle. 

Some expositors take σῶμα in the sense of ‘mass, totality” 
(Calvin, Grotius, a/.); but this is against N.T. usage, and does not 
agree so well with the context, the images in which are connected 
with the body, ‘buried, raised.” The expression σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, 
i. 22, has a different meaning. 

The Rec. Text after σώματος adds τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, with N° D> K L and 
most mss., Syr., Chrys. etc. 


The words are absent from %* ABCD*GP some good cursives, Old 
Lat. Vulg. Boh. etc. They are clearly a gloss. 


ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The simplest and most natural 


11. 19] THEIR COMPLETENESS IN CHRIST 251 


interpretation is: “the circumcision which belongs to Christ, and 
is brought about by union with Him,” in contrast to the circum- 
cision of Moses and of the patriarchs. Thus it is nearly equivalent 
to “Christian circumcision,” but expresses the idea that the source 
of this circumcision is in Christ. 

Some commentators have taken Χριστοῦ as the genitive of the 
object, the thought being supposed to be that in the circumcision 
of Christ we are circumcised. So Schottgen: “ Circumcisio Christi 
qui se nostri causa sponte legi subjecit, tam efficax fuit in omnes 
homines, ut nulla amplius circumcisione carnis opus sit, praecipue 
quum in locum illius baptismus a Christo surrogatus sit.” This is 
not only without support from Scripture analogy, but is foreign to 
the context, in which the circumcision spoken of is ἀχειροποίητος. 
The baptism mentioned in ver. 12, in which we are buried with 
Him, is our baptism. Soden also takes Χριστοῦ as an objective 
genitive, understanding, however, περιτομή in the sense of ἀπέκδυσις 
τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός just specified, which echoes i. 22. 

Chrysostom and Theophylact understand the genitive as sub- 
jective, 6 Χριστὸς περιτέμνει ev τῷ βαπτίσματι ἀπεκδύων ἡμᾶς τοῦ 
παλαίου βίου, Theoph. This does not harmonise with the following 
συνταφέντες αὐτῷ. 

12. συνταφέντες αὐτῷ, κιτλ. We have the same figure in Rom. 
vi. 3, 4, which may almost be regarded as a commentary on this 
passage. ‘The figure was naturally suggested by the immersion in 
baptism, which St. Paul interprets as symbolical of burial, the 
emersion similarly symbolising the rising again to newness of life. 

συνταφέντες is to be connected with περιετμήθητε, and specifies 
when and how this was brought about. 


ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι. So most authorities, ἢ AC Ὁ. K LP, etc. But 
N° B D* FG 47 67? 71 have βαπτισμῷ, which Lightfoot prefers on the 
ground that it is the less usual word in this sense. That it might be so used is 
shown. by its occurrence in Josephus, Azz. xviii. 5. 2, of the baptism of John. 
But in two of the other three passages in which it occurs in the N.T., it means 
lustration or washing, ¢.g. of vessels : Mark vii. 4 (in Rec. also 8); Heb. ix. 10. 
The third passage, Heb. vi. 2, is doubtful. In the Latin version as well as in 
the Latin Fathers, ‘‘baptisma” and ‘‘ baptismus” are used indifferently. St. 
Paul uses the substantive ‘‘ baptism” in only two other places (Rom. vi. 4 ; 
Eph. iv. 5), and this is not sufficient to supply any basis for inference as to his 
usage. Etymologically βαπτισμός would signify rather the act of dipping, 
βάπτισμα the act as complete. Weiss thinks the former more suitable here. 


ἐν ᾧ, viz. βαπτίσματι. This seems clearly required by the 
analogy between συνταφέντες ἐν and συνηγέρθητε. Chrysostom, 
however, and most comm. understand ἐν Χριστῷ. Meyer defends 
this on the ground, first, of the parallelism of ἐν ᾧ καί ἐν © καί; 
secondly, because, if baptism were intended, ἐν would not be suit- 
able to the rising again, and we should expect ἐξ, or at least the 
non-local dua; and, lastly, because as συνταφέντες is defined by 


252 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II. 12 


ἐν τῷ βαπτ., 50 is συνηγέρθητε by διὰ τῆς πίστεως ; and, therefore, 
the text suggests no reason for continuing to it the former 
definition also. ‘To the second objection (adopted also by Eadie), 
it may be replied that βάπτισμα (βαπτισμός) includes the whole 
act. It is only when we take in the two things signified, the 
“death unto sin” and the “new birth unto righteousness,” or 
the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new, 
that βάπτισμα can be identified with περιτομὴ ἀχειροποίητος ; for 
περιτομή also signified the entrance into a holy state as well as the 
separation from the state of nature. The first objection has 
really no weight, for it is much more natural to connect συνηγέρθητε 
with συνταφέντες than with περιετμήθητε; and this is strongly 
confirmed by the passage in Rom. just referred to: συνετάφημεν 
αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος... ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστός... οὕτως 
καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν, κιτιλ. Further, as 
Lightfoot observes, the idea of Χριστῷ must be reserved for 
συνηγέρθητε, where it is wanted: “ye were raised together with Him.” 
(So Alford, Beza, De Wette, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Soden, a/.) 

συνηγέρθητε. Compare Gal. lil. 27, ὅσοι εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσ- 
θητε Χριστὸν ἐπενδύσασθες The Χριστὸν ἐπενδύσασθαι presupposes 
the ἀπέκδυσις τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός. 

διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ Θεοῦ. ““ΤτΟΙΡΉ your faith in 
the working of God.” Bengel, De Wette, a/., understand ἐνεργείας 
as a genitive of cause, “‘faith produced by the operation of God.” 
But the genitive after πίστις, when not that of the person, is always 
that of the object: ‘Ci Mark x. 22; Acts ΜΙ 16; ΠΟΙ ΤΠ 55; 
Gali: 16, 205 Eph. 1m. 12; Phil. i. 27, etc. “Eph. a aromsnetea 
in favour of this interpretation, but κατὰ τὴν ἐνεργείαν there is not 
to be joined to τοὺς πιστεύοντας ; see note on the passage. The 
former interpretation is also more suitable to the context. The 
πίστις here is specified as faith in the resurrection, πιστεύοντες γὰρ 
TH τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμει προσμένομεν τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἐνέχυρον ἔχοντες TOV 
δεσπότου Χριστοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, Theodoret. πίστεως ὅλον ἐστίν" 
ἐπιστεύσατε ὅτι δύναται ὁ Θεὸς ἐγεῖραι, καὶ οὕτως ἠγέρθητε, Chrys. 
Faith is the subjective means by which the grace is received ; 
only by a belief in the resurrection can the rising again with Christ 
be appropriated by the individual. By belief in the resurrection 
of Christ we believe in the power of God, of which it is an 
evidence ; and this belief, again, is the means by which that power 
works in the life and produces an effect analogous to that resurrec- 
tion. Compare Rom. iv. 24, vi. 8, x. 9. 

BDG τῇ and most mss. have τῶν before νεκρῶν; SACK LP 
and several cursives omit it. In most instances of this or similar 
phrases ἐκ νεκρῶν is used without τῶν, and with no variety in codd. 
(In Eph. i. 20 L and some twenty-five mss. prefix τῶν.) But in 
1 Thess. i. τὸ αὶ BD GL Pand many mss., with Chrys. Theodoret, 


11. 18] THEIR COMPLETENESS IN CHRIST 253 


al., have τῶν, AC Καὶ and many mss. omitting it. It seems, there- 
fore, more probable that τῶν was omitted here in conformity with 
usage than that it was wrongly added. See on Lk. xx. 35. 
18. kai ὑμᾶς, νεκροὺς ὄντας τοῖς παραπτώμασι... ὑμῶν. See 
Hph;, 11: τ΄ 
καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν. Some commentators 
understand σαρκός as a genitive of apposition, or “epexegetical,” 
“the uncircumcision which consisted in your carnal, sinful nature” ; 
‘“exguisita appellatio peccati originalis,” Bengel. But the apostle 
could hardly have said νεκροὺς τῇ σαρκὶ ὑμῶν without some further 
definition. If, indeed, he were addressing Jews, the expression in 
this sense would be intelligible, since it would be at once obvious 
that ἀκροβ. was figuratively used, and therefore σαρκός also. But 
though intelligible it would be very strange, as it would imply a 
hidden contrast between the literal and figurative meanings of σάρξ. 
As addressed to Gentiles, who had the literal ἀκροβυστία τῆς 
σαρκός, the words can hardly be understood otherwise than as 
referring to the external fact. But it is referred to only on account 
of its symbolical significance. Dead in your trespasses and your 
alienation from God, of which the uncircumcision of your flesh 
was a symbol. τῆς σαρκός appears to be added in contrast to the 
περιτομὴ ἀχειροποίητος, and at the same time to suggest the 
symbolical sense. Hence the apostle does not say ἡμῶν, although 
presently after he introduces the first person. 
The Rec. Text has ἐν before rots παραπτώμασιν, with ¥®>ACDFGKP 
and most mss. It is omitted by Tisch. Lightfoot, with §* BL 17 and some 


other mss. Chrys. D* G and a few others, with the Latin deg, prefix é to 
τῇ ἀκροβυστία also. 


συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς. ὑμᾶς is repeated for emphasis. 


So §* ACKL and about fifty cursives, Syr. Eth. etc. B 17 37 and 
more than twenty other cursives read ἡμᾶς, conforming to the following ἡμῖν. 
8° DGP and many mss. Old Lat, Vulg. Boh., Chrys. etc. omit. The 
reasons for omission may have been the desire to simplify the grammar, and 
to avoid the proximity of ὑμᾶς and ἡμῖν. 

As B reads ἡμᾶς here for ὑμᾶς, so §°LP and many others, with Vulg. 
Eth., Theodoret, a/., have ὑμῖν for ἡμῖν. 

On συνεζωοποίησε, see Eph. 11. 5. What is the subject ἢ 
Ellicott, following Chrysostom, replies: Christ ; partly on account, 
first, of “the logical difficulty of supplying a nom. from the sub- 
ordinate gen. Θεοῦ" ; secondly, of the prominence given to Christ 
throughout the preceding context, the acts described in the 
participles (ἐξαλ. κιτιλ., compared with Eph. ii. 15, and χαρισ. 
with Col. i. 13); and, lastly, the difficulty of referring vv. 14 
and 15 to God the Father. On the other hand, the reasons for 
adopting 6 Θεός as the subject seem decisive. (1) There is really 
less logical difficulty in supplying ὃ Θεός from τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγεί- 


254 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II. 14 


pavros than in supplying 6 Χριστός from αὐτῷ or αὐτόν, where it is 
the object, or from τοῦ Χριστοῦ. (2) καὶ ὑμᾶς makes it almost 
necessary to understand the same subject to συνεζωοποίησε as to 
ἐγείραντος. (3) This is further confirmed by the σὺν in συνεζω- 
οποίησεν, and by σὺν αὐτῷ: He that quickened you along with 
Him must surely be the same who is said to have raised Him. 
(4) In St. Paul it is always God, not Christ, who is the subject of 
ἐγείρει, συνεγείρει, ζωοποιεῖ, συνζωοποιεῖ. (5) Lastly, in Eph. 1. 4, 
which is so closely parallel, ὁ Θεός is the subject of συνεζωοποίησε. 
Hence we seem compelled to take 6 @edés here as the subject, 
whatever the difficulty of vv. 14, 15. And so Meyer, Alford, 
Lightfoot, v. Soden. 

χαρισάμενος, “having forgiven.” Moule prefers “forgiving,” 
7.6. in the act of quickening. There is no grammatical objection 
to this; but logically, at least, the χαρίζεσθαι must precede the 
ζωοποιεῖν. The verb χαρίζεσθαι properly means “to grant as a 
favour” (see on Eph. iv. 32). Compare in the N.T. Luke vii. 21, 
ἐχαρίσατο βλέπειν: Acts lil. 14, φονέα χαρισθῆναι: ARVIN οὐδείς 
με δύναται αὐτοῖς χαρίσασθαι: tb. 16, XXVil. 24, κεχάρισταί σοι ὃ Θεὸς 
πάντας τοὺς πλέοντας μετὰ σοῦ. Phil. i. 29; Philemi22: 

It does not seem necessary to suppose that its use in the 
sense “forgive an offence” is derived from that of “forgiving a 
debt” ; but even if so, there is no reason to think that it continued 
to suggest the latter idea. Here at all events, notwithstanding 
χειρόγραφον, it would appear not to have been so intended, else 
παραπτώματα Would hardly be used, which would interfere with the 
figure. See on Lk. vil. 21, 42. 


ἡμῖν is here the right reading, with §* ABCDGK and most mss., deg 
Goth. Syr. (both), Boh. Arm., Chrys. αἱ. 

ὑμῖν is read by 8° LP and many mss. f, Vulg. Eth. The apostle at the 
earliest moment, as we may say, includes himself, claiming his share in the 
transgression and in the forgiveness. Such transition is frequent with him ; 
Cin τς 19Ξ12, se 2. 4; Idiolomthe 2, 3. 12, ΤᾺ Gh. 831. 22. ν 5 Ia (ne 
converse transition see Gal. iil. 25, 26, iv. 5, 6. If χαρισάμενος were simul- 
taneous with συνεζωοποίησεν, St. Paul must have used ὑμῖν here. 


14. efadeipas, “blotting out” (because simultaneous with 
χαρισάμενος, and specifying the act by which the yap. was carried 
out). Strictly, it means “wiping out or away,” ‘‘cera obducta 
delere.” It is used of “‘sins,” Acts a. τὸ; of a “name εν 
ill. 5; of “tears,” Rev. vii. 17, xxi. 4. It is used also in’ Classical 
writers of blotting out or wiping out a writing, e.g. Plato, Rep. p. 
386 C, p. 501 B, and hence of abolishing a law, Dem. p. 468, 1, 
etc. 

τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον. “The bond that was against us.” 
χειρόγραφον, properly an autograph, was in later Greek a technical 
term for a written acknowledgment of debt, for which the older 


II. 14] THE BOND BLOTTED OUT 255 


term was συγγραφή or γραμματεῖον. ‘ Chirographum” became 
the usual Roman legal term; cf. Cic. Ham. vil. 18; Juvenal, Saz. 
xr, AT: 

Here the χειρόγραφον is the Mosaic Law, which being unfulfilled 
is analogous to an unpaid “note of hand.” But the figure must 
not be pressed too far, for in this case the χειρόγραφον was not 
written by the debtor. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the 
apostle had in view the assent of the Jewish people; Deut. xxvii. 
14-26; Ex. xxiv. 3 (Chrys. Oecum. Theoph. Lightfoot, etc.), or 
in the case of the Gentiles the assent of conscience to the moral 
law. The fact of obligation is sufficient to justify the use of the 
figure. Hence it is τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον, but not ἡμῶν χειρό- 
ypadov. Although the Gentiles had not the written law, they had 
“the work of the law written in their: hearts,” and therefore come 
under the same obligation. 

For a detailed account of other views of χειρόγραφον, see Eadie. 

δόγμασιν, “consisting in δόγματα, ze. ordinances,” compare 
Eph. 11. 15, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι, where see note on 
the meaning οἵ δόγμα, which in the N.T. is always “ἃ decree.” 

The dative is best regarded as closely connected with χειρό- 
ypagov only, being dependent on the idea of γεγραμμένον involved 
in the word. Compare Plato, //. vil. p. 243 A, ὃ δὴ πάσχει τὰ 
γεγραμμένα τύποις. So Meyer, Alford, Eadie, Lightfoot, Soden. 
The explanation is not without difficulty, as xepoy. is a synthetic 
compound; and Lightfoot thinks it possible that ἐν may have 
dropped out after the similar termination -ov. If so, it must 
have been in the earliest ages that the error occurred, since no 
trace remains of the reading ἐν. 

Two or three other explanations deserve notice ; first, that 
of Winer, a/., followed by Ellicott, according to which δόγμασι is a 
nearer definition of the whole, τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον expressing 
at the same time what the χειρόγραφον was, and in what respect it 
was against us. For this we should expect τὸ τοῖς δόγμασιν καθ᾽ 
ἡμῶν X., ΟΥ τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν x. τῶν δογμάτων, or the like. 

Erasmus, Olshausen, Conybeare, and others connect τοῖς δόγ- 
μασιν with the following clause: “the handwriting, which by its 
ordinances, was against us,” a very unnatural construction, for 
which Acts 1. 2 affords no parallel. 

The Greek commentators (Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore 
Mops., Theodoret, Oec., Theoph.) connect δόγμασιν with ἐξαλείψας, 
understanding the word to mean the doctrines or precepts of the 
gospel, as the instrument by which the blotting out was effected. 
Jerome adopts this view; and so, amongst moderns, Grotius, Estius, 
Bengel, Fritzsche. 

But this is not only opposed to the use of δόγμα in the N.T., 
but, what is of more importance, it is inconsistent with fact. 


256 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS (er: 14 


For it is not by precepts or doctrines (ἡ εὐαγγελικὴ διδασκαλία, 
Theoph.), nor by faith (Theodoret), that the handwriting, 2.6. the 
Mosaic Law, is abrogated. Moreover, the cognate verb doypari- 
ζεσθε in ver. 29 has obvious reference to the δόγματα here, and it is 
implied that such δόγματα are obsolete. It is remarkable that the 
Greek commentators named above do not even allude to the 
correct interpretation, adopting without question that construction 
which was grammatically simplest. Irenaeus, however (quoted by 
Lightfoot), appears to have taken the more correct view. 

The term δόγματα is used here instead of νόμος, doubtless in 
order to hx attention on the formal element, the plurality of 
precepts,—an element which was common to it and the δογματίζειν 
of the false teachers. It thus prepares for the τί δογματίζεσθε 
of ver) 20, secon ksi. 

ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν. ‘Which was directly opposed to us.” 
Here first the idea of the hostility of the χειρόγραφον is expressed, 
the καθ᾽ ὑμῶν only asserting its validity with reference to us. 

ὑπεναντίος occurs again Heb. x. 27. The ὑπό does not in this 
word imply either secrecy (Beza, al.) or mitigation, as = “ subcon- 
trarius,” a signification which ὑπό in composition often has, but which 
does not belong to ὑπεναντίος either in the Sept. or in classical writers. 
For the Sept. cf. Gen. xxi. 27; Ex. xxii, 27; and forselassical 
usage, two passages cited by Lightfoot, viz. Arist. De Gen. et Corr. 
1. 7, ἐοίκασι ol τοῦτον TOV τρόπον  earas 4 ὑπεναντία φαίνεσθαι λέγειν, 
where it means “self-contradictory,” and [Plato] Adc. Sec. 138 C, 
SQ. To μαίνεσθαι dpa ὑπεναντίον σοι δοκεῖ τῷ φρονεῖν ; ΑΛ. Πάνυ a 
οὖν... 139 B, SQ. Kat μὴν δύο γε ὑπεναντία ἑνὶ πράγματι πῶς ἂν 
εἴη, Where the argument turns on the sense of direct opposition 
involved in the word. 

καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου. ‘And it (emphatic) He hath 
taken out of the way.” The χειρόγραφον, the writing on which had 
been blotted out, has now been itself removed out of the way. αἴρειν 
ἐκ TOU μέσου OF ἐκ μεσοῦ was a Classical expression for removing 
out of the way, as, on the contrary, ἐν μέσῳ εἶναι meant “to be in 
the way.” For the former, compare Dem. De Corona, p. 354, τὸ 
καταψεύδεσθαι καὶ δι᾿ ἐχθράν τι λέγειν ἀνελόντας ἐκ μέσου ; also Acts 
xvil. 33 and 2 Thess. ii. 7, μόνον ὃ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἂν ἐκ μέσου 
γένηται. The idea “from between us and God” is not implied, 
but only that of an obstacle, as these and other passages show. 
The change of structure from the participles to the finite verb is to 
be noted, as well as the perfect jpxev. ‘The perfect fixes attention 
on the present state of freedom resulting from the action which 
was especially before the apostle’s mind. “It is suggested,” says 
Lightfoot, “by the feeling of relief and thanksgiving which rises up 
in the apostle’s mind at this point.” ‘This is quite sufficient to 
account for the change of construction ; but there was another and 





II. 15] THE BOND BLOTTED OUT 257 


more imperative reason in the necessity for adding a further parti- 
cipial definition to the “taking away.” It is clear that ἄρας... 
προσήλωσας would not have conveyed the same idea. 


Lightfoot and others suppose a change of subject at ἦρκεν, viz. from ὁ Θεός 
to ὁ Χριστός. A new subject, it is thought, must be introduced somewhere, 
because ‘‘no grammatical meaning can be assigned to ἀπεκδυσάμενος by which 
it could be understood of God the Father,” and the severance created here 
by the change of construction suggests this as the best point of transition, the 
alternative point being at ἀπεκδυσάμενος. Barry observes that such gramma- 
tical anomalies are not uncommon in St. Paul. But certainly this cannot be 
said of such a misleading confusion or hidden change of subject as this would 
be. Lightfoot compares the transition in i. 17-19. If the interpretation 
given in the note there is correct, there is no hidden transition, the subject of 
εὐδόκησεν being expressed. But even if ὁ Θεός is the subject of εὐδόκησεν in 
i. 19, there is no analogy. For the change of subject there is not concealed, 
and the only peculiarity is that 6 Θεός is not expressed ; and the very ground 
on which commentators defend this view of the construction is that the verb 
εὐδοκεῖν and the substantive εὐδοκία are so often used absolutely of God’s good 
pleasure that the verb itself suggests ‘‘God” as its subject. Here, on the 
contrary, there is nothing in the words to indicate or suggest a new subject. 
On the contrary, ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου only expresses a different aspect of the 
same idea that is presented in ἐξαλείψας. No intelligible reason has been 
alleged why St. Paul should say, ‘‘God blotted out the handwriting, Christ 
removed it out of the way.” Indeed, had this been stated with the subjects 
expressed, it would have created a difficulty. 

Further, this view is open to the fatal objection, that it dissociates χαρισά- 
μενος and ἐξαλείψας from the Cross. It inevitably suggests that the forgive- 
ness and the blotting out of the χειρόγραφον ascribed to God are one thing, 
and the removal, etc., ascribed to Christ a distinct and subsequent work. 
V. Soden, indeed (who, however, does not suppose any change of subject), 
suggests such a distinction as possible. He remarks that in the figure itself 
αἴρειν προσηλώσαντα denotes a step beyond ἐξαλείφειν, so that we might 
regard the ἐξαλ. as accomplished in the sending of Christ, the αἴρειν ἐκ τοῦ 
μέσου in His death. He considers it more probable, however, that both 
expressions are figures for one and the same thing, the χαρίζεσθαι τὰ mapa- 
πτώματα, the former applying to it in its effect, the latter adding the means by 
which the effect is accomplished. 


προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ otaup@. The aorist expresses the historical 
fact. ‘The verb does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., but is found 
in classical writers, and with σταυρῷ in 3 Macc. iv. 9, and Joseph. 
Bell. Jud. ii. 14. 9. The thought expressed is similar to that in 
Gal. iii. 12. As Meyer observes, “‘since by the death of Christ on 
the Cross the law which condemned men lost its penal authority, 
inasmuch as Christ by His death endured for men the curse of the 
Law and became the end of the Law, hence in the fact that Christ 
as a ἱλαστήριον was nailed to the Cross, the Law itself was nailed 
thereon, whereby it ceased to be ἐν μέσῳ. The figure in προση- 
λώσας is suggested simply by the idea of the crucifixion; there is 
no reason to suppose, with Grotius, any allusion to a custom of 
driving a nail through obsolete laws or decrees, and so hanging 
them up in public, a custom which seems to be unproved. 

15. ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας, ἐδειγμάτισεν, 

17 


258 THE EPISTLE DO) THE COLOSSIANS {π|:- 15 


κιτιλ. The verb ἀπεκδύεσθαι appears not to occur in any writer 
before St. Paul; its occurrence, therefore, here and in iil. 9, as 
well as that of ἀπέκδυσις in ver. 11, 1s remarkable. It is, no doubt, 
chosen in order to express more emphatically the completeness 
of the action. Both ἀποδύειν and ἐκδύειν occur in classical authors 
in the sense “strip,” hence of enemies, “strip of arms, spoliare.” 
For ἐκδύειν in the sense “strip,” see Matt. xxvii. 28, 31; Mark 
xv. 20; Luke x. 30. The middle occurs 2 Cor. v. 4 of putting oft 
the mortal body. In this Epistle, ui. 19, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι occurs 
again in the sense “strip off and put away,” viz., τὸν παλαιὸν 
ἄνθρωπον. It is very difficult to decide in what sense the word is 
used here. 

First, it has been taken absolutely, ‘‘ having put off from himself 
his Jody, he made a show,” etc.,as RV. marg. This, which 
supposes 6 Χριστός to be the subject, is the interpretation adopted 
by Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and some other Latins. Probably, 
however, they had before them a Latin counterpart of the reading 
found in G, viz. τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας. ‘The Latin of G has 
the same. ‘Thus Hilary has twice, ‘‘exutus carnem et potestates 
ostentui fecit” (773, 990); once, however, he has ‘‘spolians se 
carne et principatus et potestates ostentui fecit ” (204). 

Novat. also has ‘‘exutus carnem potestates dehonestavit ” 
(De Trin. 16). It will be observed that these quotations, except 
the third from Hilary, agree with G in omitting τὰς ἀρχάς. This 
reading may have originated from the eye or ear error of a copyist, 
aided by the suggestion of ἀπεκδ. ; but more probably was a gloss, 
which was supposed to be a correction, and so substituted for the 
correct text. There is a trace either of the reading or the inter- 
pretation in a Docetic work quoted by Hippolytus, //aev. viil. 10, 
p. 267, ψυχὴ ἐκείνη ἐν TO σώματι τραφεῖσα, ἀπεκδυσαμένη TO σῶμα 
καὶ προσηλώσασα πρὸς τὸ ξύλον καὶ θριαμβεύσασα δι’ αὐτοῦ τὰς 
ἀρχάς, κιτιλ. The Syriac Peshitto has the same interpretation, 
“by the putting off of his body”; and so the Gothic also. 

In support of this interpretation 2 Cor. v. 4 is referred to, 
where the cognate verb ἐκδύσασθαι is used absolutely of putting oft 
the body. But there the metaphor is not abruptly introduced, 
the verb only carrying out the figure introduced with its explanation 
in vv. 2, 3. Here it would be quite isolated, being neither explained 
nor suggested by anything in the context, with which, indeed, the 
idea would have no apparent connexion. Some expositors, indeed, 
have found an allusion to the metaphorical use of ἀποδύεσθαι, “ to 
prepare for a contest,” as in Plut. Wor. 811 E, πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀποδυό- 
μενοι τὴν πολιτικὴν πρᾶξιν. ‘This explanation is very far-fetched, 
and entirely unsuitable. 

2. Ellicott, Lightfoot, a7, adopt the interpretation of the Greek 
commentators, Chrysostom, Severianus, ‘Theodore Mops., and 


II. 15] SPOILING OF PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS 259 


Theodoret, viz. taking tas ἀρχάς, x.7.A., as governed by ἀπεκδ., the 
sense being, “ having stripped off from himself the hostile powers of 
evil.” ‘Our Lord by His death stripped away from Himself all 
the opposing Powers of Evil (observe the article) that sought in 
the nature which He had condescended to assume to win for 
themselves a victory,” Ell. Similarly Lightfoot, ‘‘ Christ took upon 
Himself our human nature with all its temptations (Heb. iv. 15). 
The powers of evil gathered about Him. Again and again they 
assailed Him; but each fresh assault ended in a new defeat.” 
“The final act in the conflict began with the agony of Gethsemane ; 
it ended with the Cross of Calvary. The victory was complete. 
The enemy of man was defeated. The powers of evil, which had 
clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and 
cast aside for ever. And the victory of mankind is involved in the 
victory of Christ. In His Cross we too are divested of the poisonous 
clinging garments of temptation and sin and death ; τῷ ἀποθέσθαι 
τὴν θνητότητα, says Theodore, ἣν ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς ἀφεῖλεν εὐεργεσίας, 
ἀπεδύσατο κἀκείνων (1.6. τῶν ἀντικειμένων δυνάμεων) τὴν αὐθεντείαν ἧπερ 
ἐκέχρηντο καθ᾽ ἡμῶν." 

But this interpretation is open to serious if not fatal objections. 
In the first place, as the verb means to divest of clothing, it requires 
us to regard these hostile powers in the light of a clothing of God 
or Christ, a “ Nessus robe,” as Lightfoot expresses it. 

If the interpretation, “ putting off the body,” is to be rejected 
on the ground that the metaphor, though a natural one, is not 
suggested or explained by the context, the objection applies more 
strongly to the view in question, which supposes a metaphor by no 
means easy to understand and not elsewhere paralleled. The putting 
off the old man, ch. iii. 9, is not at all parallel. Lightfoot compares 
Philo, Quod det. pot. ins. 13 (i. p. 199), Where the image in the 
context is that of a wrestling bout, ἐξαναστάντες δὲ καὶ διερεισάμενοι 
Tas ἐντέχνους αὐτῶν περιπλοκὰς εὐμαρῶς ἐκδυσόμεθα ; but there the 
figure is sufficiently explained by the context. Here (and this is 
the second objection) the figure would be irrelevant to the context. 
As Alford observes, “is it in any way relevant to the fact of the 
law being antiquated by God in the Great Sacrifice of the atone- 
ment, to say that He in that act (or, according to others, Christ in 
that act) spoiled and triumphed over the zxfernal potentates?” 
Lastly, there is another very strong objection. If it was only by 
putting off His human body on the Cross that He could put off 
from Himself the powers of evil that beset His humanity, this 
would not be victory, but retreat. 

3. Alford observes, and apparently with justice, that the terms 
ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι are general ; and a specific reference to “ infernal 
powers” is not to be assumed unless it is determined by the 
context, as in Eph. vi. 12. ‘‘ Now the words have occurred before 


260 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II. 15 


in this very passage, ver. 10, where Christ is exalted as κεφαλὴ 
πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, and it is hardly possible to avoid 
connecting our present expression with that, seeing that in τὰς 
ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας the articles seem to contain a manifest 
reference to it.” ‘Taking the words, then, in a more general sense, 
he explains the whole by reference to passages in which the Law is 
said to have been administered by angels, Gal. ii. 19, διαταγεὶς 
dv ἀγγέλων : Heb. 11. 2, 6 δι ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος : Acts Vii. 53, 
ἐλάβετε τὸν νόμον eis διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων. Compare Jos. Anz. 
XV. 5. 3, ἡμῶν τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων, καὶ τὰ ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν 
τοῖς νόμοις δ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ μαθόντων, “they were the 
promulgators of the χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν." That writing was 
first wiped out, and then nailed to the Cross—abrogated and 
suspended there. ‘‘ Thus God ἀπεξεδύσατο τὰς ἀρχὰς Kal τὰς 
efovaias—divested Himself of, put off from Himself, that ἀγγέλων 
διαταγή, manifesting Himself henceforward without a veil in the 
exalted Person of Jesus.” It is no objection to this “that thus 
more prominence would be given to angelic agency in the law than 
was really the fact; the answer is, that the prominence which is 
given is owing to the errors of the false teachers, who had evidently 
associated the Jewish observances in some way with the worship of 
angels.” With reference to this, the statement of Theodoret quoted 
below on ver. 18 is important, τοὺς ἀγγέλους σέβειν εἰσηγοῦντο, 
διὰ τούτων λέγοντες δεδόσθαι τὸν νύμον. “St. Paul’s argument will 
go only to this,—that whatever part the angelic powers may have 
had, or be supposed to have had in the previous dispensation, 
all such interposition was now at an end, that dispensation itself 
being once for all antiquated and put away.” Ritschl’s view is 
similar. Ellicott’s objection to this view is that it rests on the 
assumption that the verse refers to Θεός, not Χριστός. But, in fact, 
it only assumes that the contrary is not proved. ‘The principal 
objection to taking ὁ Θεός as the subject throughout is the supposed 
difficulty or impossibility of interpreting ἀπεκδυσάμενος, x.7.A., of 
God the Father. It is not logical to adopt this argument, and 
then to reject an interpretation which meets this difficulty on the 
ground that the subject must be ὁ Χριστός. 

4. The foregoing interpretations assume that ἀπεκδυσάμενος, 
being in the middle voice, must mean “stripping from himself.” 
But the middle often only expresses a personal interest, and the 
cognate verb ἀπεδυσάμεθα occurs in Plato, Ref. p. 612 A (quoted 
by Meyer), in the sense ‘‘nudavimus.” Nor does the fact that in 
iii. g the same verb in the same voice means “strip from oneself,” 
decide the question as to its meaning here. As Bp. Perowne observes 
(apud Moule), there are classical parallels to such a varying use 
of the middle in neighbouring contexts. See Soph. Ajax, 245, 
647. It is allowable, therefore, to take the verb here in the sense 


11. 15 SPOILING OF PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS 261 


“spoil, disarm,” the middle conveying the idea “sibi exspoliare.” 
This sense, accordingly, is adopted by Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, 
Moule, Eadie, Soden. Most of these, however, understand as in 
(1) (2) by the ἀρχαὶ καὶ ἐξουσίαι the infernal powers. Some of the 
objections made to (2) apply to this view also. First, that if these 
were intended we should expect this to be specified ; and, secondly, 
that it does not harmonise with the context. What had the dis- 
arming of the infernal powers to do with the abolition of the 
δόγματα ἢ or what connexion had the assertion of it with the warn- 
ing against the θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων᾽Ὁ Meyer’s explanation is that 
it was in sin that these powers had their strength in their hostility 
to God, and “the power of sin was in the Law” (1 Cor. xv. 56) ; 
hence with the law “the infernal power stands and falls.” Surely 
a faulty argument. The abolition of the law does not do away with 
sin. Moule, again, says, ‘‘ He who is King of all orders of good 
angels is here presented as Conqueror of their evil counterpart.” 
This supposes that τὰς ἀρχάς, «.7.A., here are actually contrasted with 
πάσης ἀρχῆς, k.T.r., In ver. 10, of which contrast there is no indication. 

5. V. Soden adopts the translation “spoiled,” 2.6. “ disarmed,” 
but adopts a view of ἀρχαὶ καὶ ἐξουσίαι similar to that of Alford 
and Ritschl, viz. that they are the angelic powers in so far as they 
represent the Law, and thereby have power over men, and doubly 
over those who do not fulfil it, that is (since ideally the law was 
valid for all men), not Jews only, but Gentiles also (Gal. iv. 3, 9, 
ili. 19; 1 Cor. vill. 5 sqq.). The fact, which in ver. 14 was 
described on the side of men, is now carried out in its significance 
for the angelic powers who represented those δόγματα, having in 
view the fact that the δογματίζειν taught in Colossae, which the 
apostle is combating, was ultimately a θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων 
(18, 23). 

This view is equally tenable whether the subject is taken to be 
6 Θεός Or ὃ Χριστός, and it seems less open to objection than the 
former. The remark quoted above from Alford as to the promi- 
nence given to angelic action is equally applicable to this interpre- 
tation. 

ἐδειγμάτισεν. A rare word, which, perhaps, is also to be read in 
Matt. i. το, μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι : 1 and Lightfoot also quotes 
a passage from Acta Pauli et Petri, in which it occurs, ἵνα μὴ μόνον 
ἀπὸ τῆς TOD Σίμωνος ἀπάτης φύγωσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ δειγματίσουσιν αὐτόν, 
where it is explained in the context as “to proclaim.” The sub- 
stantive δειγματισμός occurs in the Rosetta inscription. ‘The idea 
involved in devyparigew is only that of public exhibition, not of 
shame (παραδειγματίζειν). 

ἐν παρρησίᾳ. The rendering “ openly,” as in AV. and retained 


1 The Text. Rec. there has mapadevyparioat,—a word which frequently occurs 
in Polyb. etc. ; also Num. xxv. 4; Isa. iv. 173; Jer. xill. 22; Ez. xxviii. 17. 


262 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II. 15 


in RV., is approved by Bengel, De Wette, Olsh., Wordsworth, and 
adie. δημοσίᾳ, πάντων ὁρώντων, Theoph., Alford would preserve 
the idea of ‘‘openness of speech,” “declaring and revealing by the 
Cross that there is none other but Christ the Head πάσης ἀρχῆς 
καὶ ἐξουσίας." ‘Openness of speech,” however, seems unsuitable 
to the connexion. As to the sense ‘‘ openly, publicly,” it seems to 
be supported by John vu. 4, where ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι is opposed to 
ἐν κρυπτῷ ποιεῖν, and ΧΙ. 54, Ἰησοῦς οὐκέτι παρρησίᾳ περιεπάτει ἐν 
τοῖς Ιουδαίοις ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν, κιτιλ. In St. Paul, however, it 
always means “ὙΠ boldness, or confidence” (an idea which is 
also present in the places cited), and so it is understood here by 
Meyer, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Soden. Hofmann connects ἐν παρρησίᾳ 
in the sense “openly” with θριαμβεύσας, which, however, already 
contains that idea. 

θριαμβεύσας αὐτούς. αὐτούς, masc. of the ἀρχαὶ καὶ é€., because 
they are treated as personal existences, not with any reference to 
their possible designation as ἀγγέλους. 

θριαμβεύσας, “ triumphing over them,” or, rather, “leading them 
in triumph,” as in 2 Cor. 11. 14. This is the usual signification of 
the verb with accus. of person. /.g. Plut. Zhes. οὐ Rom. 4, 
βασιλεῖς ἐθριάμβευσε καὶ ἡγεμόνας. Wetstein, on Cor. 4c, gives 
other examples. 

ἐν αὐτῷ Bengel, De Wette, a/, take this as=év Χριστῷ, 
But Christ is not mentioned in ver. 14. Most commentators 
understand it as=év σταυρῷς To this Soden objects that σταυρός 
in ver. 14 is only a secondary idea; and he refers the pronoun to 
χειρόγραφον. In doing away with the χειρόγραφον God triumphed 
over those who administered it. (Meyer, ed. 4 (1874), does not 
mention this view, which is attributed to him by Ellicott (1857) 
and Eadie (1855).) The Vulgate has ‘in semetipso,” and so RV. 
margin. G reads ἐν ἑαυτῷ. 

The metaphor is a very bold one whether understood of God 
or of Christ. If αὐτῷ refers to σταυρῷ, the words would certainly 
be more suitable to Christ, and in that case the antithesis between 
θριάμβευσας and ἐν σταυρῷ would be extremely striking. “The 
violence of the metaphor,” says Lightfoot, “is its justification. 
The paradox of the Crucifixion is thus placed in the strongest light 
—triumph in helplessness and glory in shame. ‘The convict’s 
gibbet is the victor’s car.” No doubt this way of putting the 
thought is very striking ; but if this had been the meaning of the 
apostle, might we not expect that he would express it more dis- 
tinctly, instead of almost hiding it, as we may say, in an un- 
emphatic pronoun with an ambiguous preposition év? We might 
have expected some such expression, for instance, as σταυρωθεὶς 
ἐθριάμβευσε. But, in fact, the contrast suggested would be quite 
irrelevant to the apostle’s purpose, and the more striking it is the 


II. 16] PRACTICAL APPLICATION 263 


less likely is it that he would introduce it in this way as a side- 
thought, thus tending to draw the reader’s attention from the argu- 
ment. 

For ἐν αὐτῷ Origen (in several places) reads ἐν τῷ ξύλῳο. So 
also his translator (vv. ii. 416), commenting on “in ligno crucis,” 
says: ‘‘licet in aliis exemplaribus habeatur ¢77wmphans tn semetipso, 
sed apud Graecos habetur zz /igno.” 

16-28. Practical application of these principles to the ascetic 
precepts and the angel-worship of the false teachers. With thetr 
precepts about eating and drinking and observance of days, they 
would have you attach yourselves to the shadow, whereas you are in 
possession of the reality. The cult of angels ts inculcated as a becom- 
ing exercise of humility ; but this is a false humility, and ts really the 
fruit of carnal pride, vaunting ttself in the pretended knowledge of 
these angelic powers, and is derogatory to Christ the Head, on whom 
alone we depend for spiritual health and growth. 

16. Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω. “Therefore,” seeing that the law of 
ordinances has been done away with, “let not any one,” not μηδείς, 
but μή τις, as in ver. 8, pointing to some definite persons ; κρινέτω, 
not “condemn,” but “judge you, take you to task.” Compare 
Rome χῖν 2. 7:1 Cor: x, 20. 

ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει. “In eating or in drinking,” ze. in the 
matter of eating or drinking. Compare Rom. xiv. 17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν 
ἡ βασιλεία Tod Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις. βρῶσις in St. Paul is always 
the action of eating (1 Cor. viii. 4; 2 Cor. ix. ro), not the thing 
eaten (Baopa, 1 Cor, Vir 17. vill, 8) x, 3, a7; Heb. ix. 10); In 
Homer, indeed, βρῶσις is used for “food” (ZZ. i. 210, 44); and so 
in St. John iv. 32; cf. 34, vi. 27, 55. There is a similar difference 
between πόσις and πόμα. 

The Mosaic Law contained no prohibition respecting drinks 
except in special cases, namely, those of Nazirite vows and of 
priests ministering in the tabernacle (Num. vi. 3; Lev. x. 9). 
There was also a prohibition of drinking from vessels rendered 
unclean by the dead bodies of unclean animals (Lev. xi. 34). We 
know, however, that the Essenes, the prototypes of the Colossian 
false teachers, went far beyond the Mosaic code, abstaining wholly 
from wine and from animal food (see Lightfoot, p. 86). 

Lightfoot reads καὶ ἐν πόσει, with B, Syr-Pesh. Boh., Tertull. 
Origen. ‘Tertullian, however, reads e¢ in all four places, therefore 
his evidence in this instance is valueless. The Syriac also has 
“and” in three of the four places, “or” only in the second; its 
evidence also, therefore, counts for nothing. ‘The apostle might 
have written καί not 7, because βρῶσις and πόσις naturally belong 
together (but so, indeed, do the following three), and the occur- 
rence of 7 in the other three clauses would easily lead a copyist to 
substitute it here. But the authority for καί is too slight. 


264 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [π|:1} 


Compare 1 Cor. xi. 27, ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον, κ-τ.λ., 
where A, some cursives, Syr-Pesh. Boh. Eth., Origen, αἰ. have καί. 

ἢ ἐν μέρει, “in the matter of”; compare ἐν τουτῷ τῷ μέρει, 
2 Cor. ill, 10, 1x. 33; μέρος often denotes the class or category, 
especially with verbs like τιθέναι, as in Plato, Rep. 1. 348 E, ἐν 
ἀρετῆς Kat σοφίας τίθης μέρει τὴν ἀδικίαν. Chrys. and Theodoret 
take it here in the sense “part,” οὐ γὰρ δὴ πάντα κατεῖχον τὰ 
πρότερα, Chrys. 

ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων. The words specify the annual, 
monthly, and weekly celebrations ; cf. Gal. iv. το. 

σάββατα, though plural, means “ἃ Sabbath day,” being, in fact, 
a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, and from its form mistaken 
for a plural. Thus Josephus distinctly, Av. ill. το. 1, ἑβδόμην 
ἡμέραν ἥτις σάββατα καλεῖται ; also 70. 1. 1. I. Compare Hor. Sav. 
i. 9. 69, “hodie tricesima Sabbata.” See on Lk. iv. 31. 

BG have the spelling νεομηνίας, and so the Vulg. 

17. & ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστοῦ. σκιά does 
not mean an outline or sketch (as understood by Calvin and 
many others), which would be σκιαγραφία or σκιαγράφημα, and 
is excluded by the antithesis of σῶμα. A sketch would be con- 
trasted with the complete picture. It is simply “shadow,” having 
in itself no substance, but indicating the existence of a body which 
casts the shadow. σῶμα accordingly retains its proper signification 
“body,” not “substance.” Compare Philo, De Conf. Ling. p. 434, 
τὰ μὲν ῥητὰ TOV χρησμῶν σκιάς τινας ὡσανεὶ σωμάτων εἶναι: Opposed 
to τὰ ὑφεστῶτα ἀληθεῖᾳ πράγματα. Josephus, Zell. Jud. i. 2. 5, 
σκιὰν αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας, ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ TO σῶμα. Compare 
also Heb. x. 1, σκιὰν ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, οὐκ 
αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων: 10. Vill. 5, σκιᾷ λατρεύουσι τῶν 
ἐπουρανίων. The figure expresses both the unsubstantiality and 
the supersession of the Mosaic ritual. But the thought found in 
it by some Greek commentators, and adopted by Meyer and 
Lightfoot, that the shadow comes Jdefore the substance (7 σκιὰ 
προτρέχει TOD σώματος), is not contained in the text; for it is no 
part of the idea of a shadow that it goes before the body, or is 
seen before it. Theodoret presses the figure still further: προ- 
λαμβάνει ἣ σκιὰ TO σῶμα ἀνίσχοντος τοῦ φωτός: ὡς εἶναι σκιὰν μὲν 
τὸν νόμον σῶμα δὲ τὴν χάριν, φῶς δὲ τὸν δεσπότην Χριστόν. 

Meyer again presses the tense of ἐστι so far as to infer that τὰ 
μέλλοντα are not the already then existing Christian relations, the 
καινὴ διαθήκη (rather τὰ τῆς καινῆς διαθηκής), but belong “ wholly ἢ 
to the αἰὼν μέλλων. The present, however, is sufficiently ex- 
plained by the remark of Davenant (afd Ellicott), ‘loquitur 
de illis ut considerantur ¢z svd@ natura, abstractae a circumstantiis 
temporis.” Yet it may be used in its temporal sense quite as well 
as the presents in Heb. x. 1.sqq. For the observance of these 


II. 18] PRACTICAL APPLICATION 265 


times and seasons had not ceased, although that of which they 
were the shadow had come. Meyer’s interpretation would vitiate 
the apostle’s reasoning, for if τὰ μέλλοντα were still wholly future, 
the σκιά would not be superseded, and the observances referred to 
would retain their importance. 

V. Soden regards σῶμα as denoting τὰ μέλλοντα in their con- 
crete organisation, 2.6. the Church (cf. ver. 19). 

τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 2.6. belongs to Christ; the blessings typified by 
these observances are found in Him. ‘The article is prefixed in 
x* A C P17 a/,, Oec.; omitted in 8° DG Καὶ L most mss., Chrys. 
etc. Chrysostom mentions a strange punctuation: of μὲν οὖν 
τοῦτο στίζουσι τὸ δὲ σῶμα, Χριστοῦ, ἡ δὲ ἀληθεία ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ 
γέγονεν᾽ οἱ δὲ, τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστοῦ μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω, 
τούτεστιν, ἐπηρεαζέτω.ς So Augustine, 22. 59, “Corpus autem 
Christi nemo vos convincat,” confessing that he does not 
understand it. This connexion is also supported by ABP 
(apparently δὲ also) @Z, Eth. 

18. Μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω. καταβραβεύειν is an extremely 
rare word. Jerome reckoned it as one of St. Paul’s Cilicisms, but 
it has been found in two other places. First in Demosth. 7272. 
Ρ. 544 (not as used by the orator, but in a statement of witnesses), 
διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν ἐπιστάμεθα Στράτωνα ὑπὸ Μειδίου καταβραβευ- 
θέντα καὶ παρὰ πάντα τὰ δίκαια ἀτιμωθέντα. Strato had been 
arbitrator in a cause between Demosthenes and Meidias, and as 
the latter did not appear, gave judgment against him. On this 
account Meidias contrived to have Strato condemned to ἀτιμία. 
The other passage quoted in the Lexicons and commentators is 
in Eustathius on Hom. //. A. 402sqq. Speaking of the assistance 
which Briareus, son of Poseidon, rendered to Zeus, when Poseidon, 
with two other deities, conspired against him, Eustathius observes 
that as amongst men sons often differ from their fathers, οὕτως 
οὐδὲ 6 μυθικὸς Βριάρεως φίλα φρονεῖ τῷ πατρί, ἀλλὰ καταβραβεύει 
αὐτόν, ὥς φασιν οἱ παλαιοί, τοῦ φυσικοῦ θεσμοῦ προθέμενος τὸ 
δίκαιον. Here the word clearly means ‘decides, or takes part, 
against,” and from the words ὥς φασιν οἱ παλαιοί, may be regarded 
as almost a definition of the word by a scholar to whom it was 
familiar. It will be observed that neither in this passage nor in 
the former is there any question of a prize. 

This meaning of the verb is confirmed by its etymology. The 
simple verb βραβεύειν, which, of course, signifies primarily ‘‘ to act 
as βραβεύς or umpire,” awarding the prize, βραβεῖον (1 Cor. ix. 24 ; 
Phil. iii. 14), seems, in all the examples that we have of its use, to 
have dropped all reference to a prize, and to mean only “to 
decide.” For instance, Isocr. Aveop. p. 144 B, ἐν τῇ κληρώσει τὴν 
τύχην βραβεύσειν. ‘The same writer, 2.424. c. 29, uses τὰ παρά 
(τινος) βραβευόμενα to express regulations made by a person. In 


266 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [11. 18 


Demosthenes, again, OZ p. 36, 7, τὰ τῶν ἄλλων δίκαια βραβεύειν is 
“to arbitrate or decide on the rights of others.” So p. 1231, 11, 
of the unequal treatment of rich and poor, τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ὑμῶν 
ταῦτα βραβευόντων. Josephus, Anz. ix. 1. 1, has: παρεκελεύσατο 
μηδενὸς οὕτως ὡς τοῦ δικαίου προνοουμένους κρίνειν τοῖς ὄχλοις. . . 
βραβεύειν δὲ ἅπασι τὸ ἶσον ; and Ant. xiv. 9. 5, ws εἰ καὶ πολέμου 
ῥοπὰς βραβεύει τὸ θεῖον. Compare also Col. ili. 15, ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ βραβευέτω ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. In accordance with this 
meaning of βραβεύειν, καταβρ. would mean “to decide or give 
judgment against” ; and it is so interpreted by Photius (af. Oec.) 
and Hesychius, κατακρινέτω. So also the Syriac Versions. 

This gives an excellent sense here, the phrase being stronger 
than the similar one in ver. 16, κρινέτω. It is adopted instead 
of κατακρινέτω, probably in order to suggest the idea of assump- 
tion of authority. This is the interpretation adopted by Reiche, 
Bleek, Field (Otéwm Morvicense), and many others. Bengel’s inter- 
pretation is: “ne quis brabeutae potestatem usurpans, atque adeo 
abutens, vos currentes moderetur, perperamque praescribat quid 
sequi quid fugere debeatis praemium accepturi” ; and _ similarly 
a-Lapide and Beza. This seems to put too much into the word. 

The Greek commentators, who seem to have had no independent 
knowledge of the word, take it to be equivalent to tapaBpaBevew, 
which occurs in Polybius and Plutarch, and means to assign the 
prize unfairly. Zonaras (af. Suicer) says: καταβραβεύειν ἐστι τὸ 
μὴ νικήσαντα ἀξιοῦν τοῦ BpaBetov, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρῳ διδόναι αὐτό. This 
implies that 6 καταβραβεύων is the judge. Suidas’ words are: τὸ 
ἄλλου ἀγωνιζομένου ἄλλον στεφανοῦσθαι λέγει ὁ ἀπόστολας KaTa- 
βραβεύεσθαι. Meyer, adopting this view, supposes the apostle 
to mean “willing (θέλων) to bring it about that the prize may be 
withheld from you and given to him and his.” As their obtaining 
the prize would not involve others losing it, this would imply 
folly as well as malice. ‘The meaning assigned by recent com- 
mentators generally, viz. ‘rob or beguile you of your prize,” 2.6. 
“cause you to lose your reward by defeat,” or the like, does not 
agree either with Suidas or Zonaras, and it increases the difficulty 
of θέλων. It results from the desire to retain a reference to a 
βραβεῖον, which, as we have seen, is not generally retained in the 
simple verb, nor, as far as we can judge, in the compound. 

θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ‘These words are very difficult. 
Many commentators (including Augustine, Estius, Olshausen, 
Bleek, Lightfoot) explain them as a Hebraism in imitation of 
the Hebrew "2 yin, “taking delight in,” or rather (since the 
Hebrew verb does not mean θέλειν, but εὐδοκεῖν), of the occasional 
Septuagint rendering of that expression (1 Sam. xviii. 22; 2 Sam. 
xv. 26; 1 Kings, x. 9; 2 Chron. 1x ὃ; ΒΒ Ὁ a, Ὁ 19 
In 1 Chron. xxviii. 4, the same words occur as a rendering 


1) 18] FALSE HUMILITY OF ANGEL WORSHIP 267 


of "1 AN. Lightfoot also quotes from the Zest. Χ 71. Patr. Asher 
1., ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ θέλῃ ἐν καλῷ. 

The main objection to this, and it is a fatal one, is that St. 
Paul does not use Hebraisms which so violate Greek grammar. 
The fact of such an expression occurring in the Sept., especially in 
Sam. Kings and Chron., is not a reason for attributing it to 
St. Paul. Indeed, except in Ps. cxlvii. τὸ the object in the 
Sept. is always a person. In the Apocrypha, θέλειν ἐν is not found. 
The expression θελητὰς νόμου, τ Macc. iv. 42, is not parallel. Nor is 
this interpretation relevant to the context, for it is not the pleasure 
which the false teacher takes in his humility, etc. that is in 
question. 

Alford connects θέλων with the participle, translating “ of 
purpose,” and comparing 2 Pet. it. 5, λανθάνει yap αὐτοὺς τοῦτο 
θέλοντας. He also quotes Theophylact as apparently supporting 
this view, θέλουσιν ὑμᾶς καταβραβεύειν διὰ tarewodp. But both 
this comment and the passage in 2 Pet. are equally, if not more, 
applicable to the following interpretation. 

Other expositors connect θέλων with the following words, 
supplying καταβραβεύειν. So Theodoret: τοῦτο τοίνυν συνε- 
βούλευον ἐκεῖνοι γίνεσθαι, ταπεινοφροσύνῃ δῆθεν κεχρημένοι (Compare 
Theoph. above); and so Photius, Buttmann, Eadie, Ellicott, and 
many others. ‘Theodoret, indeed, presses θέλων too far; the 
purpose of the false teachers was not directly, but indirectly hostile 
to the Colossians. 

RV. marg. has: “of his own mere will, by humility,” etc. 
This agrees nearly with Beza: “hoc munus 5101 a nullo tributum 
exercens,” Reiche, Tittmann, ας It also corresponds well with 
ἐθελοθρησκεία below, and, on the whole, appears to deserve the 
preference. ‘The construction (which is the same as Alford’s) is 
simpler grammatically than that last mentioned, and the sense 
obtained is more satisfactory. Luther (followed by Ewald and 
Tyndale) gives a similar sense to θέλων, but connects it with 
ἐμβατεύων. 

Lightfoot quotes two conjectural emendations, viz. θέλγων, 
suggested by Leclerc (ad foc.) and Bentley (Crit. Sacr. p. 59), 
and more plausibly ἐλθών, suggested by Toup (Zmend. in Suidam, 
il. p. 63). We can hardly suppose, however, that if ἐλθών had 
stood here originally it could be corrupted into θέλων. Hort 
conjectures ἐν ἐθελοταπεινοφροσύνῃ. The last word is actually 
employed by Basil, and compounds of é6eAo- were used freely 
when St. Paul wrote. Compare Aug. 2322. 149, ὃ 27: “Sic enim et 
vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat ‘hedodives, et qui sapientem 
thelosapiens, et cetera hujusmodi. Ergo et hic /shelohumitis, 
quod plenius dicitur ‘helon humilis, id est volens humilis, quod 
intelligitur ‘volens videri humilis,’ ‘affectans humilitatem,’ ” 


268 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II. 18 
* 

ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων. raz. is elsewhere 
(except ver. 23) treated as a virtue, and so in this Ep. iit. 12. 
But there is false as well as true humility, and here it is defined 
by the following θρησκείᾳ τῶν dyy., which again is illustrated by it. 
What is referred to, then, is the humility which finds expression 
in the worship of angels, and this worship again is that which is 
inspired by this false humility. Perhaps the false teachers made 
much of humility in inculcating this θρησκεία, chiefly from false 
notions as to the power of the angels; but partly, it may be, from 
an idea that God Himself was too high and unapproachable for 
men, who must therefore use the mediation of angels. This is 
the explanation given by Theodoret: λέγοντες ws ἀόρατος ὃ τῶν 
ὅλων Θεός, ἀνεφικτός τε καὶ ἀκατάληπτος, καὶ προσήκει διὰ τῶν 
ἀγγέλων τὴν θείαν εὐμένειαν πραγματεύεσθαι. Compare Augustine, 
Conf. x. 42, “Quem invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? Am- 
biendum mihi fuit ad angelos? Multi conantes ad te redire, 
neque per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt haec, et 
inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum, et digni habiti sunt 
illusionibus.” Zonaras, again, in commenting on the 35th Canon 
of the Council of Laodicaea, says there was an ancient heresy of 
some who said that we should not call on Christ for help or 
access to God, but on the angels, ὡς τάχα τοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν 
ἐπικαλεῖσθαι πρὸς τὰ εἰρημένα μείζονος ὄντος τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀξίας 
(Suicer, i. p. 45). So also Chrysostom and Theophylact. This 
latter view, however, would place Christ high above the angels, 
and therefore cannot have been that of the Colossians, who re- 
quired to be taught the superiority of Christ. Nor can ‘Theodoret’s 
explanation be adopted without hesitation, since there is nothing 
in the context about the mediation of angels or of Christ ; nor 
does this view of tazewodp. agree with the following ἃ ἑώρακεν, 
x.t.A.Theodoret, however, throws light on the passage when he 
states that οἱ τῷ νόμῳ συνηγοροῦντες καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους σέβειν 
αὐτοῖς εἰσηγοῦντο, διὰ τούτων λέγοντες δεδόσθαι τὸν νόμον, for which 
reason, he adds, the Council at Laodicaea forbade praying to 
angels: καὶ μέχρι δὲ Tod viv εὐκτήρια τοῦ ἁγίου Μιχαὴλ παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις 
καὶ τοῖς ὁμόροις ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν. 

ἃ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύειν or ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων. ἐμβατεύειν is 
properly to step or stand on (as an ἐμβάτης). So with gen. Soph. 
Oecd. Tyr. 845, ἐμβατεύειν πατρίδος. Hence “to dwell in,” Eurip. 
Fleract. 875, κλήρους δ᾽ ἐμβατεύσεσθε χθονός : and similarly of a god, 
to “haunt” a place. Soph. Qed. Col, 671, ἵν’ ὃ βακχειώτας αἰεὶ 
Διόνυσος ἐμβατεύει. It also means to “enter upon” a country, 
“to invade.” Later, it is found in a figurative sense of “ entering 
into” a subject of inquiry. So Philo, De Plaut. Noe. ii. 19, 
“As some of those who open up wells often fail to find the 


sought-for water,” οὕτως of προσωτέρω χωροῦντες τῶν ἐπιστημῶν καὶ 


11.18] FALSE HUMILITY OF ANGEL WORSHIP 269 


ἐπιπλέον ἐμβατεύοντες αὐταῖς, ἀδυνατοῦσι τοῦ τέλους ἐπιψαῦσαι: and 
so perhaps 2 Macc. il. 30, τὸ μὲν ἐμβατεύειν καὶ περὶ πάντων 
ποιεῖσθαι λόγον... τῷ τῆς ἱστορίας ἀρχηγέτῃ καθήκει (but RV. 
“to occupy the ground”). Athanas. on Matt. xi. 27, τολμηρὸν 
ἐμβατεύειν τὴν ἀπερινόητον φύσιν. Nemes. De Vat. Hom. (p. 64, 
ed. Matth.), οὐρανὸν ἐμβατεύει τῇ θεωρίᾳ. 

If we read ἑώρακεν the sense will be, “dwelling in,” as RV. 
“taking his stand upon,” as RV. marg. or ‘‘ poring over, busying 
himself with,” or with the idea of pride in his possession, ‘‘ making 
parade with.” ‘What he hath seen” is then to be understood 
ironically, his “visions.” 

Hilgenfeld (quoted by Meyer) understands the words to mean, 
without irony, ‘‘taking his stand on the ground of sense”; but 
against this is the perfect ἑώρακεν as well as the expressive ἐμβα- 
tevwv. Besides, the error in question was based on a supposed 
knowledge of angels. 

The Rec. Text ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν conveys the idea, “intruding into 
things which he hath not seen.” At first sight this is easier. But, 
as Alford remarks, it “would be a strange and incongruous ex- 
pression for one who was advocating a religion of faz#i—whose 
very charter 1s μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες Kal πεπιστευκότες--ἴο blame 
aman or a teacher for ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύειν." We should rather 
expect it to be regarded as a fault in a teacher that he took his 
stand in the realm of sight. 

If, however, the negative was written from the apostle’s point 
of view, we should expect the objective οὐχ to be used ; if, on the 
other hand, it is from the false teacher’s point of view, ‘‘intruding” 
would not be a suitable translation, but “searching,” or the like. 


As to the reading, the evidence is as follows :— 

Without the negative : 

MSS.: S*ABD* 17 28 67? codd. mentioned by Jerome (22. 121 aa 
Alg. i. p. 880); codd. mentioned by Augustine (22. 149, ii. p. 514). 

Versions: Old Latin dem Boh. Arab. (Leipz.) Eth. 

Fathers, etc.: Tertullian (cot. Marc. ν. 19, ‘ex visionibus angelicis,”’ 
and apparently Marcion himself also) ; Origen once (in the Latin translation. 
In Cant. ili. p. 63, ‘‘in his quae videt”). Also, cont. Cels. i. p. 583 
(Greek, the editions prior to De la Rue); Lucifer’s De on conv. c. haer. 
p- 782, Migne ; Ambrosiaster (explaining thus : ‘‘inflantur motum pervidentes 
stellarum, quas angelos vocat.” In the citation of the text editions differ). 
Pseudo-Augustine, Quaest. ex N.7. i. 62, 111. App. p. 156. 

With the negative μή: 

MSS.: CK LP and all cursives except those above mentioned. 

Versions: Old Latin fg Vulg. Goth. Syr. (both) Arm. 

Fathers, etc.: Origen once (in the Latin transl. /2 Rom. ix. § 42, iv. p. 
665). Also, cont. Celsum, as above (Greek as edited by De la Rue, who, 
however, says nothing about MSs., but remarks: ‘‘ at Gelenius legit.” ἃ μὴ 
ἑώρακεν, Tisch.); Ambrose. /7 Ps. 118, Exp. 20 (i. p. 1222), Pelagius, 
Chrysostom, Se Mops., Theodoret, ‘John Dam, 

With οὐ; N°C D’°G. 


270 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II. 18 


It will be observed that no MS. older than the ninth century reads μή, 
and with the exception of C none older than the seventh has a negative in 
either form. It is open to question whether οὐ, inserted by way of correction 
in δὲ and D, was derived from MS. authority or was merely a conjecture. 

The ‘‘ deliberate preference” of Jerome and Augustine cannot rightly be 
reckoned as ‘‘evidence” in favour of μή. The words of the former are: 
**(Juae nec ipse vidit qui vos superare desiderat, sive vidit (utrumque enim 
habetur in Graeco).” The words of Augustine are: ‘‘Quae non vidit inculcares, 
vel sicut quidam codices habent, quae vidit inculcares.” Their evidence 
amounts simply to this, that some of the MSS. they consulted or were 
acquainted with had the negative and some had not. As to their judgment, 
that is a different thing. Jerome’s ‘‘utrumque habetur in Graeco” expresses 
none. Even Augustine’s do not contain any direct or decided expression of 
preference, nor does he say anything as to the respective value of the MSS. 
which he quotes. 

The reading which omits the negative is preferred by Tisch. Treg. WH. 
(see fost), Alford, Meyer, Soden, Lightfoot (but see 2052). Burgon thinks 
the Rec. Text ‘‘cannot seriously be suspected of error” (Revision Revised, 

; 356). 

: Lightfoot concludes from a review of the evidence that the negative is a 
later insertion ; but as the combination ‘‘invading what he has seen” is so 
hard and incongruous as to be hardly possible, he suspects a corruption of the 
text prior to all existing authorities ; and in this Hort and Taylor agree with 
him. He conjectures aiwpa (or ἐώρᾳ) κενεμβατεύων, ‘raised aloft, treading 
on empty air,” the existing text, aewpaxeveuBarevwy, being ““ explained 
partly by an attempt to correct the form ἐώρᾳ into αἰώρᾳ, or conversely, and 
partly by the perplexity of transcribers when confronted with such unusual 
words.” κενεμβατεύειν does not itself occur, but κενεμβατεῖν is not infrequent. 
It is used by Plutarch, Basil, and others in a figurative sense, e.g. Basil, i. p. 
135, τὸν νοῦν. . . μυρία πλανηθέντα Kai πολλὰ κενεμβατήσαντα ; i. p. 596, 
σοῦ δὲ μὴ κενεμβατείτω ὁ νοῦς. The other word, αἰώρα, which is used in a 
literal sense, either of the instrument for suspending or of the position of sus- 
pension, as the floating of a boat, the balancing on a rope, the poising 
of a bird, etc., is used figuratively by Philo, De Sommn. ii. 6 (i. p. 665), 
ὑποτυφούμενος ὑπ᾽ alwpas φρενῶν καὶ κενοῦ φυσήματος ; Ouod Deus Immut. 
§ 36 (1. p. 298), ὥσπερ ἐπ᾽ αἰώρας τινος ψευδοῦς καὶ ἀβεβαίου δόξης φορεῖσθαι 
κατὰ κενοῦ βαίνοντα. 

Dr. C. Taylor (Journal of Philology, 1876, xiii. 130), followed by West- 
cott and Hort, prefers ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων. There is an earlier conjecture 
which involves even less change, or none, in the text, viz. ἃ ἑώρα (or ἃ 
ἑώρακεν) κενεμβατεύων. ἑώρακεν is better than ἑώρα, and the emendation only 
supposes the common error of omission of a repeated syllable. Ingenious, 
however, as these conjectures are, it does not seem necessary to depart from the 
text of the best MSS. (Blass thinks κενεμβατεύων fairly certain, Gram. p. 67.) 


εἰκῆ φυσιούμενος. εἰκῇ 15 by some comm. connected with the 
preceding clause (De W., Conybeare, a/.) in the sense “rashly, 
uselessly.” But εἰκῆ in St. Paul precedes the words it qualifies 
(Rom. xiii. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 2; Gal. iv. 11), except Gal. iii. 4, where 
there is a special reason for placing it after ἐπάθετε. Its usual 
meaning in St. Paul is “to no purpose, fruitlessly” ; and so it is 
understood here by v. Soden; but it equally admits the other 
sense, “‘ without reason,” which it has in Matt. v. 22, and this is 
more suitable to φυσιούμενος. The false teachers were without 
reason puffed up with the idea of their superior knowledge. There 


II. 19] FALSE HUMILITY OF ANGEL WORSHIP 27. 


is a sharp irony in the contrast between ταπεινοφροσύνη and φυσιού- 
μενος. τὸ δέ ye φυσιούμενος TH ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἐνάντιον οὐκ ἔστι" τὴν 
μέν γὰρ ἐσκήπτοντο, τοῦ δὲ τύφου τὸ πάθος ἀκριβῶς περιέκειντο, 
Theodoret. 

ὑπὸ Tod νοὸς τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ. “By the mind of his flesh.” 
The νοῦς as a natural faculty is in itself indifferent, and may be 
under the influence either of σάρξ or πνεῦμα ; Cf. Rom. 1. 28, ΧΙ]. 2 ; 
ΠΝ ὙΠ So Mit 1 ΠΕ ane. Rom. vil, 2511 Cor, xiv, τῇ. Is, 
The expression here used, “mind of, or belonging to, the flesh ” 
(possessive genitive), seems to continue the irony. The false 
teachers claimed a higher intelligence, perhaps a deeper spiritual 
insight ; whereas the apostle declares that it was carnal, not 
spiritual. Compare Rev. 1} 24; “which know not the deep things 
of Satan, as they say,” where “as they say” refers to “deep 
things,” which are then bitterly characterised as “of Satan.” 

19. καὶ οὐ κρατῶν. “And not holding fast.” For this sense of 
κρατεῖν. with accus., Compare Mark vii. 3, 4) 8, Kp. τὴν παράδοσιν: 
Acts il. 24, οὐκ ἣν δυνατὸν κρατεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ: iii, 11, 
κρατοῦντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸν Ilérpov καὶ Ἰωάννην : 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; Rev. 
il. I, 13, 14, 15, 25, lil. 11, vil. 1. Frequently, however, it means 
“to seize” ; but that sense is inapplicable here. 

τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ. The relative is masculine, because it is a 
person that is referred to as the Head; not because Χριστοῦ is 
implied; cf. ver. 15. Meyer, however, followed by Eadie, regards οὗ 
as neuter, referring to the Head, not personally, but in an abstract 
sense “from which source.’ oh understand it as referring to 
Christ, Eadie thinks, would destroy the harmony of the figure. 
The objection does not apply to the explanation just given. It is 
to be noted that D* Syr-Harcl. Arm. add Χριστόν. 

ἐξ is causal, ‘from whom as the source,” and the relative 
clause expresses the perverseness of the οὐ κρατῶν, «.7.A., as much 
as to say “‘ whereas from this,” ete. 

διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων. For the meaning of these words 
see note on Eph. iv. 16. σύνδεσμος means in general any of the 
connecting bands in the body, whether ligaments proper, or tendons, 
or muscles ; but in its special sense is limited to the “ligaments,” 
as appears from a passage in Galen quoted by Lightfoot. But in 
a passage like the present this technical sense is not to be pressed ; 
the purpose of the figure is to express the complete dependence of 
the Church as a whole, and of all its members as parts of an 
organised body, on Christ directly, angels not intervening. 

ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον. Compare Eph. iv. 16, 
συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον. There, the main purpose 
was to insist on the vital cohesion and union of the parts with 
each other ; here, on dependence on the Head. Here as there the 
present participles are to be noted; the process is a continuing 


272 ΤῊΝ EPISTLE, TO RHE ΘΟΕΘΒΒΙΑΝΘΒ peg 20 


one... For émyop. cf.2, Cor im τῷ; Gal, a. 5% -2 Petia 
ἐπι indicates rather direction than intensity. ἐπιχορ. seems to be 
the function of the aac, συμβιβ. of the σύνδεσμοι. For the passive 
of ἐπιχορ., compare Polyb. iv. 77. 2, πολλαῖς ἀφορμαῖς ἐκ φύσεως 
κεχορηγημένος. Arist. Lol. iv. 1, σῶμα κάλλιστα πεφυκὸς καὶ 
κεχορηγημένον. 

αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν, cognate accusative ; not a periphrasis, nor 
added “‘to give force to the meaning of the verb,” but because it 
was desired to define the nature of the αὔξησις as τοῦ Θεοῦ, a 
growth having its root in God, belonging to God; cf. 1 Cor. i. 6, 
ὁ Θεὸς ηὔξανεν. In Eph. iv. 16 also “growth” is the result 
aimed at ; but there, in accordance with the difference in the points 
of view just referred to, it is τὸ σῶμα itself which τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ 
σώματος ποιεῖται εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ. Lightfoot remarks 
that the discoveries of modern physiology have invested the 
apostle’s language with far greater distinctness and force than it 
can have worn to his own contemporaries. ‘‘The volition com- 
municated from the brain to the limbs, the sensations of the 
extremities telegraphed back to the brain, the absolute mutual 
sympathy between the head and the members, the instantaneous 
paralysis ensuing on the interruption of continuity,—all these add 
to the completeness and life of the image.” He quotes several 
very interesting passages from Hippocrates, Galen, and others as 
illustrating ancient speculation on the subject, and he reminds us 
that one of the apostle’s most intimate companions at this time 
was “the beloved physician” (iv. 14). It may be remarked, 
however, that the apostle is speaking of supply and_ binding 
together rather than of volition and sensation (unless we adopt 
Meyer’s view of adai (see on Eph.)). Theophylact also remarks : 
ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς πᾶσα αἴσθησις Kal πᾶσα κίνησις. 

20. εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷς “If ye died with Christ” (not 
“if ye be dead,” as AV.). They had died with Christ in baptism, 
vv. 11, 12, and had risen again with Him. Comp. Jn. vi. 49, 58. 

ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου. ἀποθνήσκειν ἀπὸ occurs here only 
in the N.T. The dative is used Rom. vi. 2; Gal. τι. τὸ Here 
the preposition is more suitable, inasmuch as what is referred to 
is liberation from a dominating power. 

τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ, NOt merely as being in the world, but 
living your life in the world. ‘Their true “life was hid with Christ 
in God,” ii. 3. ΤῸ live in the world would be εἶναι ἐν τῇ σαρκί. 

δογματίζεσθες. Probably best taken with RV. as middle. 
“Why do ye subject yourselves (or allow yourselves to be sub- 
jected) to ordinances?” ‘The middle, indeed, implies some blame 
to the readers. But they were not compelled by force, so that 
even if the verb be understood as passive, it is implied that they 
submitted to the yoke. 


ἘΠ 21] FALSE WISDOM OF THE ASCETIC PRECEPTS 273 


The verb δογματίζειν occurs frequently in Sept. and Apocr., 
meaning ‘‘to issue a decree.” Elsewhere it is used of the precepts 
of philosophers. In the active it takes the indirect object in the 
dative, 2 Macc. x. 8, which therefore may become the subject of 
the passive. 


οὖν of the Rec. Text has little support, of uncials only §* and N° 
τῷ before Χριστῷ scarcely any. 


21. “μὴ ἅψῃ μηδὲ yedon μηδὲ Olyns.” Examples of the δόγ- 
ματα, “Handle not, neither taste, nor touch.” ἅπτεσθαι is stronger 
than θιγγάνειν, suggesting rather “taking hold of” than merely 
“touching.” Thus Themist. Paraphr. Arist. 94, ἡ τῶν ζώων ἁφὴ 
κρίσις ἐστὶ Kat ἀντίληψις τοῦ θιγγάνοντος. Compare Xen. Cyrop. 
i, 3. 5, ὅτι σε, φάναι, ὁρῶ, ὅταν μὲν τοῦ ἄρτου ἅψῃ, εἰς οὐδὲν τὴν 
χεῖρα ἀποψώμενον, ὅταν δὲ τούτων τινὸς θίγῃς εὐθὺς ἀποκαθαίρει τὴν 
χεῖρα εἰς τὰ χειρόμακτρα. In the N.T. comp. Matt. viii. 3, ἥψατο 
αὐτοῦ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς : 26. 15, τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς : John xx. 17, μή μου ἅπτου 
(often in the Gospel): 1 Cor. vil. 1, γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι: 2 Cor. 
Vl. 17, ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε. θιγγάνειν occurs in N.T. only here 
and Heb. xi. 28, xii. 20 (a quotation). Hence there is a climax 
of prohibitions, reversed in the AV., following perhaps (through 
Tyndale) the Latin, which has “tangere” for ἅπτεσθαι, and “ con- 
trectare” for θιγεῖν. Coverdale renders well (except as to the 
order), “as when they say, touch not this, taste not that, handle 
not that.” There were such prohibitions in the Mosaic law, and 
these were, doubtless, not only re-enacted, but exaggerated by the 
Colossian false teachers, as they had been by the Jewish. The 
form of the Rabbinical precepts was just that here given. The 
Essenes also abstained from the use of wine, oil, and animal food, 
and would not touch food prepared by defiled hands. 

Some commentators have suggested a special object for each 
of the three verbs ; for example, for ἅψῃ (γυναικός), which others 
have supplied to θίγῃς. This form of asceticism, which also was 
practised by the Essenes, is referred to in 1 Tim. iv. 3, κωλυόντων 
γαμεῖν ; but it is not suggested by anything in the present context, 
and would hardly be referred to so obscurely. Other suggestions 
have been offered which do not deserve mention, since it is clear 
that St. Paul is only citing typical forms of prohibition. For the 
same reason we must not suppose the prohibitions limited to food. 

It is a singular illustration of the asceticism of a later date, 
that some Latin commentators (Ambrose, Hilary, Pelagius) re- 
garded these prohibitions as the apostle’s own. In the words 
of Augustine, who argues against this view: “tanquam praeceptum 
putatur apostoli, nescio quid tangere, gustare, attaminare, pro- 
hibentis” (Zfzs¢. cxix., 11. p. 412). Jerome gives the correct 
interpretation, which he illustrates from the Talmud, i. 84. 

18 


274 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II. 22 


22. (& ἐστι πάντα εἰς φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει.) The clause is 
parenthetical. ‘Which things (the objects which it is forbidden 
to touch) are all (destined) for corruption in their consumption.” 
For εἶναι eis compare Acts Vili. 20, εἴη eis ἀπωλείαν : 2 Pet. 11. 12, 
γεγεννημένα . .. εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν. φθορά has its proper 
sense of decomposition, referring to the physical dissolution of 
such things in their natural use ; ἀπόχρησις meaning “ using up,” 
“consumption.” The thought is that these things which are 
merely material, as is shown by their dissolution in the ordinary 
course of nature, have in themselves no moral or spiritual effect. 
The argument is strikingly similar to that in Matt. xv. 17, εἰς 
ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται : so much so, indeed, that we might suppose 
that the apostle had this discourse in his mind. Compare also 
1 Cor. vi. 12, where the same consideration is differently applied ; 
and 78. viii. 8, where the principle is expressed, ‘‘ Meat will not 
commend us to God; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; 
nor if we eat, are we the better.” ‘This is the view taken by the 
Greek commentators as well as by most moderns. ‘Theodoret 
sayS: οὐ σκοπεῖτε ὡς μόνιμον τούτων οὐδέν: εἰς κόπρον γὰρ ἅπαντα 
μεταβάλλεται: and Oecumenius: φθορᾷ γάρ, φησίν, ὑπόκειται ἐν τῷ 
ἀφεδρῶνι. 

Other interpretations are as follow :— 

First, the antecedent of ἅ is taken to be the precepts referred 
to: “which δόγματα all by their use tend to (everlasting) destruc- 
tion.” So Ambrose, Augustine, Corn. a Lapide, a/ For this 
sense of φθορά, see Gal. vi. 8. But ἀπόχρησις never means simply 
“use,” but “using up,” ‘consumption ”; nor, indeed, would the 
simple χρῆσις be suitable in the sense of “observance,” τήρησις. 
Moreover, the addition τῇ ἀποχρήσει would, on this view, be quite 
superfluous. 

Secondly, it is held by some that these words are those of the 
false teachers, repeated in irony by St. Paul: “omnia haec (vetita) 
usu suo perniciem afferunt.” Or, again— 

Thirdly, the words, similarly interpreted, are connected with 
the following: κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα, κιτιλ. “Which things tend to 
destruction”; “scil. si ex doctorum Judaicorum praeceptis et 
doctrinis hac de re judicium feratur.” So Kypke, De Wette, and 
others. 

Against both these interpretations the objection from the 
meaning of ἀπόχρησις holds good, for it was not the “using up” 
of these things, but their simple use, that these teachers con- 
demned. 

κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων. To be 
connected with vv. 20, 21. The article covers both nouns, which 
belong to the same category, and is generic. These δόγματα were 
of human invention, not founded on the Divine commands and 


ET. 28] FALSE WISDOM OF THE ASCETIC PRECEPTS 275 


teaching. διδασκαλίας is a term of wider application than ἐντάλ- 
pata, “precepts and in general teachings.” ‘The expression is 
taken from Isa. XXxIX. 13, μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με; διδάσκοντες ἐντάλ- 
ματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας. Compare Matt. xv. 9; Mark vii. 7. 

28. ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας. ἅτινα -- “which are 
such things as,” or “ which kind of things.’ ” The position of ἐστιν 
seems to “forbid our separating it from ἔχοντα, as Lightfoot and 
others do, joining it with οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ. Bengel connects it with 
πρὸς πλησμονήν, K.T.A, 

ἐστιν ἔχοντα is not quite the same as exe; the former marks 
that the character of the precepts is such that a λόγος σοφίας 
belongs to them. Dem. 31. 11, οὐδὲ λόγον τὸ πρᾶγμ᾽ ἔχον ἐστί. 

λόγον σοφίας -- “τς repute of wisdom.” For this sense οἵ 
λόγον ἐ ἔχειν, compare Plato, Lpinomis, Ρ. 987 B, ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἑωσφόρος 
ἕσπερός τε ὧν αὑτὸς “Meine ΘῈ εἶναι σχέδον ἔ ἔχει λόγον: Herod. ν. 66, 
Κλεισθένης. . . ὅσπερ δὴ λύγον ἔχει THY πυθίην ἀναπεῖσαι. 

This repute is explained by the professed basing of these 
precepts on φιλοσοφία, ver. 8. The addition of μέν suggests at 
once that this repute was not well founded. The contrasted 
character which we expect to be introduced with δέ appears to 
be replaced by the negative characteristic οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ, «.7.A. which, 
of course, implies the absence of true wisdom, but is not opposed 
to λόγον σοφίας, but to ἐν ἐθελοθρ. «.7.A. This use of μέν without 
the δέ clause following is frequent. See Jelf, § 766 ; Winer, ὃ 63. 2. 6. 

ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ. ἐν indicating on what this repute for wisdom 
rests. The substantive ἐθελοθρησκεία is not found elsewhere (except 
in eccles. writers), but the verb ἐθελοθρησκεῖν is explained by Suidas, 
ἰδίῳ θελήματι σέβειν τὸ δοκοῦν. Epiphanius explains the name of the 
Pharisees : διὰ τὸ ἀφωρισμένους εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων διὰ τὴν 
ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκείαν Tap αὐτοῖς νενομισμένην (fZaer.i. 16). Similar 
compounds, however, are frequent in Greek, as ἐθελοδουλεία (Plato 
Conv. 184 C; Rep. 562 D); ἐθελοπρόξενος, Thue. 111. 70. 2, where 
the Schol. explains: ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ γενόμενος καὶ μὴ κελευσθείς, κ-ιτ.λ. 
The meaning of ἐθελοθρ. is therefore clear; it is “ self-imposed 
worship.” 

καὶ Tamevoppootvy, viz. what the false teachers called so; see 
ver. 18. Lightfoot supposes the force of ἐθελο. to be carried on ; 
but this seems unnecessary. 

kal ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος. “And unsparing treatment of the body.” 
The substantive ἀφειδία occurs in the definition of ἐλευθερία in 
[Plato] Def 412 D, ἀφειδία ἐν χρήσει καὶ ἐν κτήσει οὐσίας. The 
verb ἀφειδεῖν βίου occurs in Thue. il. 43; ἀφ. σωμάτων in Lys. Or. 
Fan. 25; cf. ἀφειδῶς ἐχρῶντο τοῖς ἰδίοις σώμασιν εἰς τὴν κοινὴν 
σωτηρίαν, Diod. Sic. xiii. 60. A frequent Latin rendering here 
was ‘“‘vexatio,” but Vulg. has ‘fad non parcendum.” Augustine 
mentions both (2:2. 149). 


to 
See 
oO’ 


THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [II. 23 


After ταπεινυφροσύνῃ, τοῦ νοός is added in Gde fg Vulg. Syr-Harel., Hil. αὐ. 

καί before ἀφειδίᾳ is omitted by B m Origen (Latin transl. iv. 665), Hil. 
al, Lachmann and Lightfoot bracket it, the latter saying it should probably 
be omitted, ἀφειδίᾳ being then taken as an instrumental dative. 

ἀφειδία is the spelling in §B*C DGL and most mss. 


οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ πρὸς πλησμονὴν σαρκός. These words are among 
the most difficult in the Epistle. The Greek commentators under- 
stand ἐν τιμῇ τινι of the honour to be paid to the body (suggested 
by the preceding ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος), and πλησμ. τῆς σ. of the satisfac- 
tion of bodily appetites. 

This view has been adopted “by many modern expositors, 
including Corn. a Lapide, Calvin, De Wette, and Scholefield. Estius 
expresses it thus: “Sentit apostolus sapientiam illam aut praecepta 
talia esse, per quae corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, 
i. 6. justam refectionem carnis, subtrahatur.” It is a decisive objec- 
tion to this interpretation that it assigns an impossible sense to 
πλησμονή, Which is never used in the sense of moderate satisfac- 
tion, but always in that of “repletion” or ‘“ excessive indulgence.” 
It is expressly so defined by Galen, Of. xv. p. 113 (quoted by 
Lightfoot), who says that not only physicians but the other Greeks 
apply the word μᾶλλον πως... ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς τῆς συμμέτρου 
ποσότητος. Here, where it would stand in contrast to the asceticism 
of the false teachers, it would be particularly inappropriate. More- 
over, this view supposes σάρξ to be used in an indifferent sense as 
equivalent to σῶμα, and that in a context in which it has just 
occurred with an ethical meaning. ‘The change from σώματος to 
σαρκός can be explained only by the latter having an ethical 
meaning here as in ver. 18. 

Lightfoot (followed by RV. and Moule) adopts and ably 
defends the interpretation given by Conybeare (Life and Epistles 
of St. Paul), and before him by Sumner, viz. “ yet not really of any 
value to remedy indulgence of the flesh,” or more literally as RV. 
“but are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.” 
St. Paul “allows that this πλησμονή is the great evil to be checked, 

. but he will not admit that the remedies prescribed have any 
substantial and lasting efficacy.” 

But this interpretation is open to serious objection from the 
linguistic point of view. First, as to the meaning assigned to zpos. 
It is, no doubt, often convenient to translate it against” ; but the 
idea of hostility or opposition is not in the preposition itself, which 
only means “with a view to,” ‘looking to,” etc., but in the words 
with which it is joined, as in Acts vi. 1, xxiv. το ; Eph. vi. 11. 

Lightfoot shows also that it is frequently used by Aris’ otle, and 
especially by Galen, after words denoting utility, etc., to introduce 
the object, to check or prevent which the thing is to be employed. 
Thus Aristotle, 4/zs¢. An. 111. 21, συμφέρει πρὸς τὰς διαρροίας : De 


II. 23] FALSE WISDOM OF THE ASCETIC PRECEPTS 277 


Respir. 8, βοηθεῖ πρὸς ταύτην τὴν φθοράν: Galen, De Compos. 
Medic., Opp. xii. p. 420, τοῦ δόντος αὐτὰ πρὸς ἀλωπεκίας φαλακρώσεις : 
Ρ. 476, βραχυτάτην ἔχοντι δύναμιν ὡς πρὸς τὸ προκείμενον σύμπτωμα: 
and so very frequently. ‘This use is very parallel (as Lightfoot 
indeed observes) to that of the English “ for.” Compare “ good 
for a cold, for a hurt.” 

Here the sense of the preposition seems to be “ with reference 
to,” the object being a state or condition. On the other hand, if 
the object is a word signifying action or the production of an 
effect, “for” and zpos still signifying “ with reference to” can only 
suggest “with a view to (producing).” For example, “good for 
cutting, good for the satisfaction of thirst.” 

Hence it seems to follow that unless πλησμονή be taken in the 
sense of “a state of repletion,” which would be unsuitable, πρὸς 
πλησμονήν could only mean “so as to produce 7A.” 

Secondly, as to the sense of ἐν τιμῇ τινί, “of real value.” 
Lightfoot, after Wetstein, quotes Lucian, De Alerc. Cond. 17, τὰ 
καινὰ τῶν ὑποδημάτων ἐν τιμῇ τινὶ Kal ἐπιμελείᾳ ἐστίν, and Hom. 71 
ix. 319, ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ, κιτιλ. But in these and similar passages 
τιμή Means “ estimation,” not objectively “real value,” and ἐν τιμῇ 
εἶναι is to be “in esteem,” not to be “of value.” Hence also the 
use of τιμή in the sense of “price.” Sometimes the two ideas, 
“estimation” and ‘‘ value,” may approximate, as, indeed, our word 
“value” is sometimes incorrectly used as “ valuation.” But here 
the interpretation in question supposes τιμή to mean “ real value,” 
as opposed to mere “estimation.” No instance has been produced 
which would justify such a supposition. 

Thirdly, as to οὐ... τινί This can hardly mean “not any” 
in the sense of “none,” 2.6. οὐδεμία. τις means “aliquis,” not 
“ullus” (except in poetry). So here the Latin: “in honore 
aliquo.” 

The οὐκ contradicts the combination ἐν τιμῇ τινί, implying that 
on the other side this had been said or assumed. Thus the words 
would mean: “ not for some (supposed) τιμή." 

These last two objections are fatal to all interpretations which 
require οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί to be understood as “ not of any real value.” 
Eadie regards λόγον to τινί as participial, and joins ἐστιν with πρὸς 
πλ., which is very harsh. 

Alford connects πρὸς πλησμ. «.7.A.. with δογματίζεσθε, treating 
all between as parenthetical, and understanding οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί as = 
“not in any real honour done to the body.” ‘“ Why are ye suffer- 
ing yourselves to be thus dogmatised, and all for the satisfaction of 
the flesh,” for the following out of ἃ διδασκαλία, the ground of 
which is in the φυσιοῦσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ νοὸς τῆς σαρκός, Ver. 18. Then 
follow most naturally the exhortations of the next chapter, vz. 2, 5. 
To the objection that the antithesis presented by οὐκ ἐν τιμῇ τινί is 


278 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [III. 1,2 


thus not to ἐθελοθρ. κιτ.λ. but merely to ἀφειδίᾳ σώματος, he replies 
that “‘ if the apostle wished to bring out a negative antithesis to 
these last words only, he could hardly do so without repeating the 
preposition, the sense of which is carried on to ddedig.” This 
interpretation yields a very appropriate sense, and gives τινί its 
proper sense. But it is difficult to admit so long a parenthesis 
separating the verb from its qualification. It is not analogous to 
other Pauline parentheses. 

It remains that we take τιμή in the sense of “honour,” and 
πρὸς mA. τῆς σαρκός as=“for the full satisfaction of the flesh.” 
The words suggest that the observation of such precepts was 
supposed to bring honour, and in contradicting this St. Paul with 
abrupt and sharp irony declares that the only honour would be such 
as satisfied the carnal nature, and that their boasted ἀφειδία σώματος 
was in very truth πλησμονὴ τῆς σαρκός : and this striking contrast 
explains the adoption of πλησμονή in this unusual sense. 

This is the view adopted by Soden and (nearly) by Meyer. 
Ellicott and Barry take a similar view of the connexion, but under- 
stand τιμή as ‘ value.” 

III. 1-4. Ye must have a loftier aim ; ye have risen with Christ 
and your life ts hid with Christ in God. Seek therefore those things 
that are above, where He is, seated at Goad’s right hand. 

1. εἰ οὖν συνηγέρθητε τῷ Χριστῷ: Not “if ye be risen,” AV., 
but “if ye were raised,” viz. at the definite point of time when 
they became Christians, and were in baptism symbolically buried 
and raised again with Him, ch. 11. 12. The death as a death from 
τὰ στοιχεῖα TOD κόσμου 15 Mentioned in 11. 20. εἰ does not express 
a doubt, but, as in 11. 20, the ground of an inference. 

τὰ ἄνω ζητεῖτε, κιτιλ. There is no longer any direct reference 
to the precepts of the false teachers (as if τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ver. 2, 
were τὰ περὶ βρωμάτων καὶ ἡμέρων, Theoph.). These have been cast 
aside as concerning only those living in the world, and the apostle 
rises into a higher region. Your thoughts should be on things 
above, on spiritual things, and the precepts you have to follow 
concern moral conduct. Compare ‘treasure in heaven,” Matt. 
Vi 203; τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως, Phil. iil. 14. 

οὗ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κ-.τ.λ. ἐστιν is not the copula: “ where 
Christ is, seated,” etc. ‘Par enim illuc tendere studia curasque 
membrorum, ubi jam versator caput,” Erasm. 

2. τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε. ‘Set your mind on the things above,” 
RV., an advance on ζητεῖτε. In the AV. “set your affection,” 
etc. The word “affection” was doubtless intended to bear the 
sense of “‘affectus,” ‘tendency or bias of the mind.” The 
bishops’ Bible had “affections.” The Vulgate has “ sapite,” 
“savour,” as Wyclif renders. We have the opposite state of mind 
in Phil. in. 19, of τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες. Compare Rom. vill. 5. 


III. 3, 4] SET YOUR MINDS ON THINGS ABOVE 279 


3. ἀπεθάνετε γάρ. Not “ye are dead,” as AV., but “ye died.” 
Conybeare, indeed, urges that the associated κέκρυπται shows that 
the aorist is here used for the perfect; but this is erroneous. 
The aorist expresses what occurred at a particular moment in the 
past, while the perfect κέκρυπται expresses the resulting and now 
existing state. Nor does the nature of the verb θνήσκω preclude a 
rigorous translation, as even Ellicott suggests. ‘True, in ordinary 
narrative, ἀπέθανε, “died,” implies, though it does not express, 
“is dead” ; but not so when there is reference to a possible after- 
life. Accordingly, Plato in the Piaedo never confounds θνήσκειν 
or ἀποθανεῖν with τεθνάναι. For example, p. 72 C, εἰ ἀποθνήσκοι 
μὲν πάντα, boa τοῦ ζῆν μεταλάβοι, ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀποθάνοι, μένοι ἐν τούτῳ 
τῷ σχήματι τὰ τεθνεῶτα καὶ μὴ πάλιν ἀναβιώσκοιτο ἄρ᾽ οὐ πολλὴ 
ἀνάγκη τελευτῶντα πάντα τεθνάναι καὶ μηδὲν ζῆν ; τὸ τεθνάναι having 
been defined in 71 C as the opposite οἵ τὸ ζῆν, while ἀποθνήσκειν 
was the opposite of ἀναβιώσκεσθαι, 7d. EF. 

So Homer, //. ψ. 365, uses τέθναθι with critical accuracy, not 
“die,” but “lie dead.” 

Here “are dead” would contradict συνηγέρθητες They died, 
indeed, but at the same time rose again, and that to a life spiritual 
and heavenly. ‘They were, indeed, νεκροὶ τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, but ζῶντες τῷ 
Θεῷ, Rom. vi. 11. 

ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν, your true life, not merely your resurrection life. 
They are seated ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, Eph. 11. 4-6. 

κέκρυπται. ‘‘ Neque Christum neque Christianos novit mun- 
dus ; ac ne Christiani quidem plane seipsos,” Bengel. Compare 
Rom. ii. 29, 6 ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ᾿Ιουδαῖος. 

4. ὅταν ὁ Χριστὸς φανερωθῇ, ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν. ‘When Christ shall 
be manifested, who is our life,” not ‘‘shall be manifested in the 
character of our life,” as Bengel and Eadie. Compare ὃ ἔχων τὸν 
υἱὸν ἔχει ζωήν, τ John v. 12. He is Himself the essence of the 
life ; cf. Gal. il. 20; Phil. i. 21. The absence of δέ or καί makes 
the expression more striking and vivid. Bengel observes on this: 
“Sermo absolutus lectorem totum .. . repentina luce percellit.” 
For the transition to the first person cf. ii. 13. 

φανεροῦσθαι is used here with propriety instead of ἀποκαλύπ- 
τεσθαι, which does not so distinctly imply actual present existence. 

τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ. Compare 1 John 
ill. hy οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐὰν φανερωθῇ ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα, and Rom. 
Vill. 19, τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀπεκδέχεται : and on ἐν 
δόξῃ, Rom. vill. 17, ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν, and 18, τὴν μέλλουσαν 
δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς. 

For the reading ; ἡμῶν is read in Β D’* Καὶ L most mss., Syr. (both), Boh., 
Origen. 

ὑμῶν in SC D* GP 17 47, Vulg. Goth. Arm. Eth. 

ὑμῶν was very likely to be substituted for ἡμῶν on account of the pre- 


280 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [III. 5 


ceeding ὑμῶν and the following ὑμεῖς. Tischendorf and Tregelles prefer 
ὑμῶν ; WH. and Lightfoot ἡμῶν ; and so Weiss. 

5-11. Sinus to be destroyed, as well the more subtle sins of temper 
as the grosser ones of appetite. 

5. Νεκρώσατε οὖν. “ Make dead, therefore.” As ye died, and 
your true life is hidden, carry out this death to the world, and 
kill whatever is carnal in you. 

τὰ μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Meyer understands by μέλη the literal 
members, hand, foot, eye, etc. (Matt. ν. 29), of course, taking the 
verb in an ethical sense. But this would be too strong a figure, 
and is not sufficiently supported by the passage in St. Matt., 
where the precept is not, as here, unqualified and absolute, and the 
verbs, moreover, are used in as literal a sense as the substantives. 
The whole precept there is symbolical, but the words have their 
natural sense. Besides, this interpretation of μέλῃ makes the 
connexion with the following more difficult. It is more natural to 
explain the word by the idea of the “old man,” “In the σῶμα τῆς 
σαρκός." And this is suggested by the added qualification τὰ ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς. ‘The members spoken of are those which belong to the 
body as the instrument of the carnal mind. 

With the whole precept compare @avarotre: Rom. vill. 13, εἰ δὲ 
πνεύματι τὰς πράξεις TOD σώματος θανατοῦτε ζήσετε: and Gal. v. 24, 
ot τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασι καὶ ταῖς 
ἐπιθυμίαις. 

πορνείαν, κιτιλ. Usually taken in apposition with μέλῃ, either 
directly, as if πορνεία, etc., were themselves called μέλη, “membra 
quibus vetus homo, i. e. ratio ac voluntas hominis depravata 
perinde utitur ac corpus membris,” Beza; ‘ naturam nostram 
quasi massam ex diversis vitiis conflatam imaginatur,” Calvin ; or 
indirectly, 2.2. “when I say νεκρώσατε τὰ μέλη, I mean νεκρώσατε 
πορνείαν, κιτ.λ., Of which τὰ μέλη are instruments.” On either view 
the apposition of the instruments and the activities is extremely 
harsh. Severianus (followed by many moderns) regards sin as the 
body of which the special sins enumerated are the members : σῶμα 
καλεῖ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἧς καὶ τὰ μέλη KatapiOue ; but this only evades 
the difficulty. Alford regards the construction as an instance of 
that form of the double accusative where the first denotes the 
whole, the second a part of it, as in ποῖόν σε ἔπος φύγεν ἕρκος 
ddovtwv,—an explanation which does not touch the difficulty. 
3raune thinks the body in question is the body of the Church. 

Lightfoot proposes to meet the difficulty by placing a colon 
after γῆς. Then πορνείαν, x.7.A., will be viewed as prospective 
accusatives, which should be governed directly by some such word 
as ἀπόθεσθε: but several dependent clauses interpose, and the last 
of these suggests incidentally a contrast between the past and the 
present, the thought of which predominating in the apostle’s mind 





III. 6] SINS TO BE DESTROYED 281 


leads to a recasting of the sentence, νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ 
πάντα. Lightfoot illustrates this dislocation of the construction 
occasioned by the contrast of ποτέ and viv by reference to 1. 22, 
νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατηλλάγητε (or ἀποκατήλλαξεν): and 26, νῦν δὲ ἐφανς: 
ρώθη: and to Eph. ii. 1-5, καὶ ὑμᾶς. .. ἐν ais πότε τς ἐν οἷς 
kai... ποτε. -- ὃ δὲ @eos... καὶ ὄντας mas... συνεζῶο- 
ποίησεν. This construction has been characterised as “ extremely 
difficult” ; but the difficulty is only of the same kind as that in the 
passages cited, 

After ὑμῶν the Rec. Text adds ὑμῶν, with δ ἢ AC? D GH K LP most mss., 

Vulg. Goth. other versions, Chrys. @/. 
It is omitted by § BC* 17 677 71, Clem. αὐ. 

πάθος is used by classical writers of any passive emotion. 
Thus, Aristotle distinguishes these three ev τῇ ψυχῇ γινόμενα : πάθη, 
ἕξεις, δυνάμεις. πάθη he defines as οἷς ἕπεται ἡδονὴ ἢ λύπη, including 
ἐπιθυμία, ὀργή, etc. But it is specially used of a violent emotion or 

** passion.’ 

In the other two places in which the word occurs in St. Paul 
it is defined by a genitive (πάθη ἀτιμίας, Rom. 1. 26 ; ev πάθει 
ἐπιθυμίας, τ Thess. iv. 5). Here the enumeration appears to pro- 
ceed from the more special to the more general, so that πάθος 
probably means not specially “lustfulness.” 511] less the πάθη 
ἀτιμίας of Rom. 1. 26,—an interpretation which has no linguistic 
justification,—but generally “ passion,” as RV. 

ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν. ‘This includes all evil longings, and so is 
wider than πάθος. ἰδού, γενικῶς τὸ πᾶν εἶπε. πάντα γὰρ ἐπιθυμία 
κακὴ, βασκανία, ὀργή, λύπη, Chrys. ἐπιθυμία in the N.T. has ἃ 
wide sense ; cf. John vill. 44; hence the necessity for κακήν. 

καὶ τὴν ΕΣ τεῖν κτλ see on Eph. iv. ro, Vv. 5. 

ἥτις ἐστιν. “‘ Seeing it is.” 

6. 8¢ & This is undoubtedly the correct reading, but a few 
authorities (ΟΣ D* G) read δι᾿ ὅ. 

ἔρχεται ἣ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ. After Θεοῦ, Rec. adds: ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς 
τῆς ἀπειθείας, as in Eph. v. 6. 


The evidence for the addition is extremely strong, as they are contained in 
all manuscripts except B. In D, however, the words are written in a smaller 
character at the end of the line, an indication apparently that they were not 
present in its archetype. Of Versions the Sahidic omits them, and the Roman 
ed. of the Ethiopic. Clement 294 (mss.) and 531 quotes from νεκρώσατε to 
Θεοῦ: but it would be unsafe to infer that his copy did not contain the 
addition ; he may well have stopped short of it as not necessary fer his 
purpose. 

Ambrosiaster omits them in his text, but his comment appears to 
recognise them. 

With these exceptions the addition is supported by all MSS., Versions, 
and Fathers. Its genuineness would be certain were it not that the same 
words occur in the parallel passage Eph. v. 6. It is very credible that they 
were added from that place at a very early period. On the ether hand, they 


282 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [ III. ven) 


seem required to complete the sense; certainly without them the thought is 
not the same as in the parallel in Eph. In the one case the words are a 
general warning as to the consequence of these sins; in the other a lesson is 
drawn from the example of others. The καὶ ὑμεῖς, ver. 7, seems to assume a 
previous mention of the unbelieving Gentiles. 

The evidence in favour of the omission being so slight, it may be con- 
sidered equally probable that the omission was accidental. The words are 
omitted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, WH., Alford, Weiss, and bracketed by 
Lachm. They are retained by Ellicott, Meyer, RV. fom. marg.). 


ἡ. ἐν οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατέ ποτε, ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις. ‘The 
reading τούτοις is certain, being that of SABC ΙΣ ad, αὐτοῖς is 
read in D°G KL, most mss., Chrys. Theodoret, ad. 

If the doubtful words in ver. 6 are omitted, ots and τούτοις are 
of necessity both neuter, and refer to the vices mentioned. If the 
words are retained, the pronouns may be both neuter, or the first 
masculine and the second neuter, or the first neuter, and the 
second masculine. ‘To the last view, which is that of Huther and 
others, it may be objected, that ζῆν ἐν is never used in the N.T. of 
living amongst persons, while it is frequently used with things, ἐν 
ἁμαρτίᾳ, Rom. vl. 2; ἐν κόσμῳ, li. 20; ἐν σαρκί, Phil. 1. 22. So 
in classical writers, ἐν ἀρετῇ, ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ, etc. Meyer, De Wette, 
Braune, and Ellicott take οἷς as masc., τούτοις neuter. In favour 
of this seems to be the partial parallel, Eph. 11. 2, 3, εἰ τοῖς υἱοῖς 
τῆς ἀπειθείας ἐν ols Kal ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε, a parallel 
which Ellicott thinks leaves no room for doubt. Of course, 
περιπατεῖν ev would then be understood to denote not mere 
outward living amongst, but participation in a course of life. 
Alford and Lightfoot argue that, independently of the rejection 
of the doubtful words, it is better to take οἷς as neuter, since 
περιπατεῖν ἐν 1S most commonly used of things, not of persons, 
especially in this and the companion Epistle, iv. 5, Eph. ii. 2, 10, 
iv. 17, v. 2. In 2 Thess. iii. 11, indeed, we have twas περιπατοῦν- 
τας ev ὑμῖν ἀτάκτως : but the addition of ἀτάκτως there makes the 
expression not quite parallel. So Eph. 11. 3 Lightfoot regards as 
not parallel on account of the addition ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς 
σαρκὸς ἡμῶν. But this addition does not affect the connexion of 
ἐν οἷς dveotp. And Alford admits that, if the clause ἐπὶ τ. vt. τ. 
ἀπ. is retained, this parallel goes far to decide the matter. 

ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις, 7.5. before ye died to the world ; ἐζῆτε being 
in contrast with ἀπεθάνετε. The change of tense is to be observed, 
περιεπατήσατε, aorist, because denoting single acts, ἐζῆτε expressing 
the containing state. For the difference in sense, compare Gal. 
Vv. 25, εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν. “ Vivere et am- 
bulare inter se differunt, qaemadmodum potentia et actus ; vivere 
praecedit, ambulare sequitur,” Calvin. 

8. νυνὶ δέ, in contrast to the ποτε above. καὶ ὑμεῖς, “ye also,” 
as well as other Christians. As in the former verse they were 


III. 9] SINS TO BE DESTROYED 283 


compared with the heathen society from which they had separated, 
so here with the Christian society which they had joined. Holtz- 
mann strangely supposes the καί to refer to the Christians ad- 
dressed in Eph. 11. 22. 

τὰ πάντα, ‘all of them,” everything that belongs to the old 
man. The asyndeton is thus less harsh than if ta πάντα be 
understood to be only retrospective (as Meyer, a/.). 

ἀπόθεσθε, “put ye away.” 

ὀργήν, κιτιλ. See on Eph. iv. 31. 

αἰσχρολογία occurs in the N.'T. here only. The connexion here 
shows that it means ‘“‘abusive” rather than “filthy” language. 
It denotes the form in which the injurious βλασφημία finds 
expression. Chrysostom takes it in the sense of ‘obscene talk ” 
(which he calls ὄχημα πορνείας), and so many moderns; but the 
sins of uncleanness have been dealt within ver. 5, and the other 
substantives here regard want of chanty. The word is used by 
Polybius, vii. 13. 8, in this sense of “abusive language,” ἡ κατὰ 
τῶν φίλων αἰσχρολογία: cf. xxxi. 10. 4. The verb has a similar 
meaning in Plato, Ref. il. p. 395 E, κακηγοροῦντάς τε καὶ κωμῳ- 
δοῦντας ἀλλήλους Kal αἰσχρολογοῦντας. Compare αἰσχρὰ ἔπεα, Hom. 
Ll. y. 38. 

ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν, not “proceeding from,” but dependent 
on ἀπόθεσθε, and belonging to both βλασῴ. and aicyp. 

9. μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους. ‘Do not lie towards one another.” 
εἰς does not express hostility, but direction. In Hist. Sus. 55 we 
have ἔψευσαι εἰς τὴν σεαυτοῦ ψυχήν : but this is clearly not parallel. 

ἀπεκδυσάμενοι, κιτιλ. This may be understood either as 
“putting off,” “exuentes,” Vulg., so as to form part of the 
exhortation, or “seeing that ye have put off.” The former view 
is adopted by Olshausen, De Wette, etc. Lightfoot also defends 
it, observing (1) that though both ideas are found in St. Paul, the 
imperative is the more usual; cf. Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. vi. 11, with 
ver. 143; 1 Thess. v. 8, νήφωμεν ἐνδυσάμενοι, κιτ.λ. ; (2) that in the 
parallel, Eph. iv. 24, the “putting on” is imperative ; and (3) that 
the participles here are followed by an imperative, ver.12. Gram- 
matically, there is no difficulty in thus understanding the aorist 
participle as synchronous with the present imperative. The aorist 
would, in fact, express a thing done once for all, and would be 
better represented in Latin by an ablative absolute than by a 
present participle. Nevertheless, the other view (adopted by 
Theodoret, and amongst moderns by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott), 
according to which the participles contain the motive for the 
preceding exhortation (from ἀπόθεσθε), seems the more probable, 
first, because in what precedes there is nothing to correspond 
with ἐνδυσάμενοι, as the Christian graces are not referred to; 
secondly, because ver. 11 does not fit in so well with an exhorta- 


284 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [III. 10 


tion as with an argument; and thirdly, because the imperative in 
ver. 12 is introduced by οὖν. On ἀπεκδυσάμενοι see 1]. 11, 15. 

τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον. See Lph. iv. 22. 

10. kat ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον. In the parallel, Eph. iv. 24, it is 
ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν avOp. νέος, unlike καινός, only expresses new- 
ness in point of time, but the idea of καινότης is supplied by the 
participle. 

As the result of ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν νέον ἄνθ. is that Christ is τὰ 
πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν, and as the apostle speaks elsewhere of Χριστὸν 
ἐνδύσασθαι, Gal. ill. 27, Rom. xiii. 14, some commentators infer 
that the véos ἄνθρ. here is Christ ; and hence, again, that 6 παλαιὸς 
ἄνθρ. is Adam, whose image men bear, 1 Cor. xv. 49. Ignatius, 
Eph. 20, has the expression εἰς τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν. 
If this had been the thought in St. Paul’s mind here, he would 
probably have expressed it more distinctly. It seems better, ve to 
rest satisfied with the interpretation of the “new man’ ἐξ the 
regenerate man formed after Christ.” The ultimate meee is the 
same. 

ἀνακαινούμενον, present participle, because although “ created ἢ 
once for all (κτισθέντα, Eph. iv. 24), its growth and development 
are continually going on. (Compare 2 Cor. iv. 16, ὁ 46a ἡμῶν 
[ἄνθρωπος] ἀνακαινοῦται ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ, and the opposite, TOV 
παλαιὸν ἄνθρ. τὸν φθειρόμενον, Eph. iv. 22. The ἀνα does not 
suggest the restoration of the original state, but the contrast to 
that which has lately existed. 

ἀνακαινόω 1s not used by Greek authors, nor by the Sept., but 
ἀνακαινίζω. The substantive ἀνακαίνωσις (Rom. xi. 2; Tit. i. 5) 
is also peculiar to the N.T. 

εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν. ‘ Unto thorough knowledge.” Meyer connects 
this with the following words: “unto a.knowledge which accords 
with the image of God,” z.e. which is in accordance with the Divine 
knowledge. But the Divine knowledge would hardly be set forth 
in this general way as an ideal to be attained; we should expect 
some limitation to moral or spiritual knowledge. It is more 
natural to connect κατ᾽ εἰκόνα with ἀνακαιν. and to supply the object 
of ἐπίγνωσις from the context, viz. the knowledge of God and the 
mystery of the gospel ; cf. 1. 9; ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελή- 
ματος αὐτοῦ, and ii. 2, εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου, κιτ.λ. 

κατ᾽ εἰκόνα, κιτιλ. To be connected with ἀνακαινούμενον as above. 
An allusion to Gen. i. 26, 28. 

τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν. ὁ κτίσας according to Chrysostom, a/. is 
Christ ; but ὁ κτίσας is always God, and so here especially, where the 
passage in Genesis is alluded to. αὐτόν is the new man, not τὸν 
ἄνθρωπον generally. Compare κτισθέντα 10 Eph. IV. 24, and καινὴ 
κτίσις, 2 Cor. v. 17. Soden, who interprets the “new man” of 
Christ, refers αὐτόν to τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον. As Christ is the εἰκών 


III. 11] SINS TO BE DESTROYED 285 


of God, 2 Cor. iv. 4, Col. i. 15, so Christians, when Christ is 
formed in them, become renewed after the image of God. 

Olshausen presses the designation of Christ as the εἰκών of God, 
and accordingly interprets, “after the pattern of Him who is the 
Image of God.” But this does not agree with the allusion to 
Genesis. It is true the Alexandrian school interpreted the expres- 
sion in Genesis of the Logos, but only in a sense borrowed from 
the Platonic doctrine of ideas as τὸ ἀρχέτυπον παράδειγμα, ἰδέα τῶν 
ἰδέων ὃ Θεοῦ λόγος : and this conception is certainly not in the spirit 
of St. Paul. Besides, the absence of the definite article before 
εἰκόνα obliges us to take κατ᾽ εἰκόνα in its natural sense as “ after 
the likeness of.” ‘Those commentators who understand κατὰ Θεόν, 
Eph. iv. 24, as=‘‘after the likeness of,” of course understand the 
expression here as only a more precise definition. 

11. ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι. Compare Gal. ui. 28. This ἔνι is not, as 
formerly used to be stated, a contraction of ἔνεστι, although it 
is often used in that sense; it is simply the longer form of the 
preposition ἐν, with ἐστι understood, as in πάρα, ἄνα. The fact that 
ἐν is used with it in 1 Cor. vi. 5 is not inconsistent with this, since 
the word came to be looked upon as equivalent to ἔνεστι. ‘That 
passage, however, shows that we are not to press here the idea of 
“impossibility,” οὐκ ἔνι ἐν ὑμῖν οὐδεὶς σοφός. The word here 
simply states the objective fact. 

The distinctions enumerated as abolished are first those of 
birth, involving national privileges ; secondly, of legal or ceremonial 
standing (which might be gained by adoption) ; thirdly, those of 
culture ; and fourthly, of social caste. 

Ἕλλην καὶ Ἰουδαῖος. In contrast with “Iovdatos, “EXAnv means 
simply “ Gentile” ; and, indeed, even to the present day the Jews 
sometimes speak of other nations as Greeks. 

περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία. Abstract for concrete. This clause 
and the former have special reference to the Judaising tendency of 
the heretical teachers. 

βάρβαρος, properly one who did not speak Greek (probably 
with the idea of talking “ gibberish.” Strabo explains it as onomato- 
poetic.) Hence the Greeks applied the term to all other nations. 
Even the older Roman poets (as Plautus) used the term of them- 
selves ; but later writers excluded the Romans from the class 
“ barbari,” and even included them under the term Ἕλληνες 
(Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. v. 8). 

Lightfoot quotes a striking passage from Professor Max Miller : 
“Not till that word davbarian was struck out of the dictionary of 
mankind, and replaced by é7o¢her, not till the right of all nations 
of the world to be classed as members of one genus or kind was 
recognised, can we look even for the first beginnings of our science 
(of language). . . . This change was effected by Christianity ” 


286 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [III. 12 


(Lectures on the Science of Language, 1st Ser. p. ὅσ. The whole 
passage is too long to cite). 

Σκύθης. The natural antithesis to βάρβαρος would be “EAAnv 
(cf. Rom. 1. 14); but as that has already been used the apostle 
substitutes for an antithesis a climax, for the Scythians were 
regarded as ‘“barbaris barbariores,” Bengel. The earlier Greek 
writers, indeed, on the principle ‘‘omne ignotum pro magnifico,” 
described them as εὔνομοι (Aesch. /vag. 189); but Josephus says 
they are βραχὺ τῶν θηρίων διαφέροντες (contra Ap. 11. 37). Cicero 
uses a climax similar to that before us, ‘f quod nullus in barbaria, 
Quis hoc facit ulla in Scythia tyrannus ?” (/z /zsonem, vi.). The 
word Σκύθης was used of any rough person, like our “Goth.” ‘This 
clause has reference, perhaps, to the stress laid by the Gnostic 
teachers on their γνῶσις. 

δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος. There was a special reason for St. Paul’s 
thoughts being directed to the relation of master and slave, in the 
incident of Onesimus’ conversion and return to his master. 

πάντα and τὰ πάντα are very frequently used by classical 
writers as predicates of persons. Wetstein on 1 Cor. xv. 28 quotes 
many examples. One or two may suffice here. Dem. De Cor. 
Ρ. 240, πάντ᾽ ἐκεῖνος ἣν αὐτοῖς : cont. Ariston, Ὁ. 660, πάντα ἣν 
᾿Αλέξανδρος ; Lucian, De Morte Peregr. U1, προφήτης καὶ Evvaywyevs, 
και τὰ TOAVTA μονος GAUTOS WV. 

12-17. Virtues to be cultivated, kindness, love, forgiveness, in 
which God's forgiveness of us ts to be the pattern ; mutual teaching 
and admonition, and in_everything thankfulness, everything being 
done in the name of Jesus Christ. 

12. ἐνδύσασθε οὖν, having put on the new man, put on also 
these virtues. 

ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Cf. Rom. vili. 33; Tit.1.1. In St. Paul 
κλητοί and ἐκλεκτοί, κλῆσις and exAoyy (Rom. xi. 28, 29), are 
coextensive, as indeed they seem to be in other N.T. writers 
(cf. Rev. xvii. 14) except the Gospels, where κλητοί and ἐκλεκτοί 
are distinguished (Matt. xxiv. 22, 24, 31 a/.). ws ἐκλεκτοί has a 
significant connexion with what precedes, since the ἐκλογή is 
presupposed in what is said in wv. 10, 11. 

ἅγιοι kal ἠγαπημένοι are best taken as predicates of ἐκλέκτοι, 
which with and without τοῦ Θεοῦ is used in several places as a 
substantive. 


kal is om. by B 17 Sah., and Lightfoot brackets it, thinking that the 
sentence gains in force by the omission ; cf. 1 Pet. 11. 6. 


σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ. “A heart of compassion.” σπλάγχνα, like 
“viscera,” denoted especially the nobler inward parts, heart, liver, 
and lungs, and figuratively the seat of the emotion, as we use the. 
word ‘‘ heart.” 


III. 13, 14] VIRTUES TO BE CULTIVATED 287 


The singular οἰκτιρμοῦ is supported by very preponderant 
authority. 

χρηστότητα, cf. Eph. ii. 7. 

ταπεινοφροσύνη. Eph. iv. 2, πραύτητα μακροθυμίαν, zlid. 

13. ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων, 27d. 

καὶ χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς. For the variation from ἀλλήλων to 
ἑαυτοῖς, see Eph. iv. 32. The latter word marks more strikingly 
than ἀλλήλοις would the correspondence with ὁ κύριος ἐχαρίσατο 
ὑμῖν. 

μομφή, not found elsewhere in the N.T. nor in Sept. or Apocr. 
In classical writers ἔχειν μομφήν is frequent. ‘ Quarrel” of the 
AY. is an archaism. 

καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἐχαρίσατο ὕμῖν. ‘To be connected with the 
following words, οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς (as RV.), supplying, therefore, not 
χαριζόμενοι, but χαρίζεσθε (ἑαυτοῖς). Assuming, as is probable, that 
6 Kvpuos=6 Χριστός, this is the only place where Christ is 
directly said to forgive (see on ii. 13). In the parallel in Eph. 
iv. 32, the subject is ὁ Θεὸς ἐν XptorG. Meyer remarks that the 
very frequent ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν corresponds with the present 
expression. It is perhaps pressing the technical sense of Κύριος 
too much to suppose, with Lightfoot, that it suggests the duty of 
fellow-servant to fellow-servant, recalling the lesson of the parable 
of the Unforgiving Servant, Matt. xviil. 27 ; compare below, iv. 1. 
It must be observed that the καθώς has reference only to the fact 
of forgiveness, not to the manner of its exhibition in the death 
of Christ (as Chrys. Theoph. αἰ). 

The reading cannot be regarded as certain. For ὁ κύριος are A Β D* 
G 213 defg Vulg. Pelag. 

For ὁ Χριστός, NAC C DP¢ K LP almost all mss. Syr. (both), Sah. Boh. 
Eth. Arab. (Bedwell), Clem. Chrys. Euthal. (cod. Tisch.), Theodoret, ad. 
&* has ὁ Θεός, while 17 Arm. have ὁ Θεὸς ἐν Χριστῷ. Augustine also has 
the latter reading in one place (22. 148), but in another ὁ Κύριος. 

It is suggested, on the one hand, that Χριστός has been substituted (as in 
other places) as an interpretation of Κύριος, especially as it occurs in Eph. 
iv. 32 (but not in the same connexion); and, on the other side, it has been 
suggested that Κύριος originated in an attempt at conformation with the 
passage in Eph. 

Lachmann, Treg. WH. Alford, Meyer, Lightfoot, RV. Weiss read 
Κύριος. Tisch. Ellicott read Χριστός, to which RV. and WH. give a place 
in the margin, 

14. ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις. “And over all these,” the figure of 
clothing being retained, as the verb ἐνδύσασθε has still to be 
carried on. 

ὅ ἐστιν. The pronoun is not without difficulty. The illustra- 
tions cited by Lightfoot from Ignatius are: hardly parallel, Δ ον. 
7, ἄρτον Θεοῦ θέλω, 6 ἐστιν σὰρξ Χριστοῦ: Magn. το, νέαν ζύμην 
ὅ ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. In these cases the words following 6 
ἐστιν are an explanation of the words preceding, and 6 ἐστιν = “id 


288 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [III. 14 


est,” or “by which is to be understood.” So in Mark xii. 42, λεπτὰ 
δύο, 6 ἐστι κοδράντης : XV. 42, παρασκευή, ὅ ἐστι προσάββατον. In 
none of these cases does 6 ἐστιν, κιτιλ. predicate a property or 
character of the antecedent. In order that the present instance 
should be parallel, τ. ἀγάπην and σύνδ. τ. τελ. should change places. 
Eph. v. 5 is nearer, πλεονέκτης, 6 ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, and Ign. 
Trall. ἡ, ἀνακτήσασθε ἑαυτοὺς ἐν πίστει 6 ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου : yet 
neither are these quite parallel. εἰδωλολάτρης is not, indeed, an 
explanation of the word πλεονέκτης, but it expresses his true 
character. Probably the form of expression is to be accounted 
for by the figure. σύνδεσμος, «.7.X., explains the view taken of 
ἀγάπην when ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις is applied to it. An alternative is 
to suppose the antecedent to be τὸ ἐνδύσασθαι τὴν ἀγάπην : and so 
Huther and Soden. But this certainly does not suit the sense so 
well. 

σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος. Love binds the virtues into a 
harmonious whole, not as if they could exist without it, for it 
might be called by a different figure—the root of all; but the 
figure of clothing here adopted required that its relation to the 
other virtues should be put in a different aspect. πάντα ἐκεῖνα, 
says Chrysostom, αὕτη συσφίγγει: ὅπερ ἂν εἴπῃς ἀγαθόν, ταύτης 
ἀπούσης οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ διαρρεῖ, to which Theoph. adds ὑπόκρισις 
ὄντα. 

τῆς τελειότητος. ΑΒ it is the σύνδεσμος here that makes all 
perfect, the genitive comes rather under the head of the possessive 
than of the objective. Lightfoot seems to take the latter view, 
explaining ‘the power which unites and holds together all those 
graces and virtues which together make up perfection.” ‘This not 
only involves a very questionable meaning of τελειότης, as if=Ta 
τὴν τελειότητα ποιοῦντα, Chrys., but gives an inadequate repre- 
sentation of the function of ἀγάπη. 

Wetstein quotes from Simplicius, in “zc. p. 208 A, a strikingly 
parallel expression of the Pythagoreans: καλῶς ot ΠΟυθαγορεῖοι 
περισσῶς τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν τὴν φιλίαν ἐτίμων καὶ σύνδεσμον αὐτὴν 
πασῶν τῶν ἀρετῶν ἔλεγον. 

Grotius, Erasmus, Estius and many others take the genitive 
to be one of quality, ‘‘the perfect bond,” which is not only feeble, 
but leaves σύνδεσμος undefined. Bengel, De Wette, Olshausen, 
αὶ understand by σύνδεσμος the “totality,” as in Heredian, iv. 
12. 11, πάντα τὸν o. τῶν ἐπιστολῶν, “the whole bundle οἱ letters.” 
But there is no instance of σύνδεσμος being used figuratively in 
this sense ; nor does it agree with the context, in which ἀγάπη is 
represented as put on ἐπὶ πᾶσι, not to say that it would require 
the article. In Eph. iv. 3 the gen. after σύνδεσμος is one of 
apposition. 


For τελειότητος D* Gdeg and Ambrosiaster have ἑνότητος. 


III. 15] VIRTUES TO BE CULTIVATED 289 


15. καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The peace of Christ is the peace 
which He gives and has left to His Church, εἰρήνην τὴν ἐμὴν 
δίδωμι ὑμῖν, John xiv. 27. But it is Christ’s peace in another 
sense, as the peace which belongs to His kingdom by virtue of 
His sovereignty; compare the expression, “the King’s peace.” 
The immediate reference here is not to the inward peace of the 
soul, but to peace one with another, as the context shows. But 
it cannot be limited to this, the moment the words are uttered or 
heard they suggest the other reference. 

BpaBevérw, only here in N.T.; see on καταβραβευέτω, ii. 18. 
As there observed, βραβεύω had dropped, for the most part, the 
reference to a contest, and was used of deciding or governing in 
general. Josephus, Azz. iv. 3. 2, uses it as synonymous with 
διοικεῖν ; Moses, in his prayer, says: πάντα σῇ προνοίᾳ διοικεῖται, 
καὶ μηδὲν αὐτομάτως, ἀλλὰ κατὰ βούλησιν βραβευόμενον τὴν σὴν 
εἰς τέλος ἔρχεται. Again, 76. βραβεύων ὁμονοίαν καὶ εἰρήνην. Philo, 
Quis Rer. Div. i. p. 494 A, οὐ θαυμαστὸν δὲ παρ᾽ ἀληθείᾳ 
βραβευούσῃ. 

The transition of meaning is exactly parallel to that of the 
Latin “arbitrium,” which from meaning the sentence of an 
arbitrator comes to signify “will and pleasure.” ‘“Jovis nutu et 
arbitrio caelum terra mariaque reguntur,” Cic. pro Rosc. Amer. c. 
45. Obtinere arbitrium rei Romanae,” Tac. Amn. vi. c. ult. 

Hence there is no necessity to insist on the idea of a contest 
of opposing parties, and the attempt to introduce it by reference 
to a conflict of motives, etc., really forces on the text more than 
is suggested by it. Chrysostom carries this to an extreme, στάδιον 
ἔνδον ἐποίησεν ἐν τοῖς λογισμοῖς, καὶ ἀγῶνα καὶ ἀθλησιν καὶ βρα- 
βευτήν. 

The sense then appears to be, “let the peace of Christ be the 
ruling principle in your hearts.” 

ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. In order that this principle may govern 
your actions and your words, it must first govern in your hearts. 


Χριστοῦ is the reading of X* A B C* D* ΟΡ 37 47, Vulg. Syr. (both), Boh. 
Sah, Arm. Eth. 

Θεοῦ is in N°C? DEK L117, Goth. As ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ occurs in Phil. 
iv. 7, the substitution of Θεοῦ for Χριστοῦ is readily accounted for. The 
latter is clearly more suitable to the present context, since εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ 
could not well be understood of anything but our peace with God. In Phil. 
iv. 7, Ahas Χριστοῦ. Bengel and others who defend the reading Θεοῦ here, 
suppose Χριστοῦ to have come in from 13 or 16. 


εἰς ἣν καὶ ἐκλήθητε. ‘This is nearly equivalent to “for to that 
we were also called.” Comp. 1 Cor. vil. 15, ἐν εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν 
ἡμᾶς ὃ Θεός. 
ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι. Not=cis ἐν σῶμα, but expressing the result of 
their calling; they are so called that they are in one body. It is 
19 


200 THE EPISTLE ΤΟ THE COLOSSIANS [III. 16 


on the fact that this is their present condition that the stress is 
placed. As there is one body, there should be one spirit ; cf. 
Eph. IVs 4; 4; τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς 
εἰρήνης, “Ev σώμα καὶ ἑν πνεῦμα, κ.τ.λ. 

καὶ εὐχάριστοι γίνεσθε. “ And become thankful.” Thankfulness 
for this calling is the strongest motive for the preservation of the 
peace to which they were called. The mention of this leads on to 
what follows. γίνεσθε is used because the ideal is not yet reached. 
εὐχάριστος does not occur elsewhere in N.T. It is not uncommon 
in classical writers, both in the sense “thankful” and “ pleasant” 
(so usually of things). It occurs once in Sept., and then in the latter 
sense, Prov. xi. 16, γυνὴ εὐχάριστος. Some commentators take it 
here in the latter sense (cf. Eph. iv. 32, χρηστοί). So Jerome, 
Beza, a Lapide, Olshausen, Reiche ; “in mutuo vestro commercio 
estole gratiost, amabiles, comes . . . qua virtute pax et concordia 
saepe servantur,” Reiche. ‘This sense is certainly not inappropriate ; 
and in favour of it it may be observed that the duty of thankful- 
ness is brought in as the final exhortation in ver. 17. 

16. ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. In τ Thess. 1. 8, iv. 15 St. Paul has 
ὃ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου, but more usually 6 λ. rod Θεοῦ. The change 
here is probably owing to the apostle’s purpose of exalting the posi- 
tion of Christ, which is characteristic of this Epistle. The gen. may 
be either objective, as in εὐαγγέλιον Χριστοῦ, or subjective (as most 
comm.), “the word delivered by Christ.” It is generally under- 
stood as=the gospel, but Lightfoot interprets it as denoting “the 
presence of Christ in the heart as an inward monitor. Comp. 
I John i il. 14, ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, with 26. i. Io, ὁ λόγος 
αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ὑμῖν : and so perhaps Acts xvill. 5, συνείχετο τῷ 
λόγῳ (the correct reading).” Probably the “teaching of Christ » 
generally is meant; and so apparently Chrysostom, τούτεστιν, ἡ 
διδασκαλία, τὰ Ἔα ἡ παραίνεσις. See on Lk. viii. 11. 

ἐν ὑμῖν. Not “among you,” which would not agree with the idea 
of “indwelling.” Yet it cannot well be understood of each in- 
dividual, as if referring to the faith and knowledge of each. Since 
the context speaks of oral communication one with another, év 
ὑμῖν then means, probably, “in you as a collective body.” This is 
not the same as “among you.” 

πλουσίως. The fulness of this indwelling exhibits itself in the 
following words. 

ev πάσῃ σοφία. Lightfoot joins these words with the foregoing, 
comparing for their position ch. i. 9 and Eph. i. 8, which, however, 
determine nothing. He thinks this connexion is favoured by the 
parallel in Eph. v. 18, το ; but this only decides that ψαλμοῖς, x.7.A., 
are to be connected with the preceding words. On the other 
hand, it may be observed that ἐνοικείτω is already aes by 
πλουσίως, which emphatically stands at the end. Ch. i. 28 is 


III. 16] VIRTUES TO BE CULTIVATED 291 


strongly in favour of the connexion with the following, νουθετοῦντες 
πάντα ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ. 
Here the correspondence in meaning is surely of more weight than 
the position of the words, which precede in the one case as appro- 
priately as they follow in the other. 

On διδάσκοντες and νουθετοῦντες comp. 1. 28; and on ψαλμοῖς, 
Ἐπ Eph. v. 18. Here as there the reference does not appear 
to be exclusively or chiefly to public worship, for mutual instruc- 
tion is what is prescribed. 


καί both before and after ὕμνοις is omitted by XA BC* D* FG, defg 
Vulg. (best mss.) Syr-Pesh. Goth. aé. 

It was much more likely to be added than omitted erroneously, and the 
omission is quite Pauline. 


ev [τῇ] χάριτι. 
τῇ is inserted in N° Β DG 672, Chrys. comm. 


Omitted in § AKL (to which we may perhaps add C, in which ev yape 
is written but expunged by dots above and below), Chrys. text. 


The reading with the article is adopted by critical editors 
generally, but Reiche argues strongly in favour of the omission. 
If it is read there are two interpretations possible, for χάρις may 
mean either the Divine grace, or thanksgiving. The former meaning 
is adopted by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, etc. For ἡ χάρις 
=the grace of God, compare ch. iv. 18, ἡ χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν : Acts 
XVill. 27, τοῖς πεπιστευκόσι διὰ τῆς χάριτος : 2 Cor. iv. 15; Gal. v. 4; 
Eph. iv. 7; Phil. 1. 7, συγκοινωνούς pov τῆς χάριτος. It must, 
however, be admitted that none of these passages is parallel to the 
present. In all of them ἣ χάρις is spoken of as something con- 
ferred, and therefore can only be ἡ x. τοῦ Θεοῦ. It is different 
here, where the readers are directed to do something ἐν τῇ χάριτι. 

Hence the other interpretation, “with thankfulness,” which is 
that of Anselm, De Wette, Bleek (omitting 77), Soden, seems 
preferable. For χάρις in this sense see 1 Cor. x. 30, εἰ δὲ ἐγὼ 
χάριτι μετέχω, where the apostle himself interprets χάριτι in the 
following clause: ὑπὲρ of ἐγὼ εὐχαριστῶς The article is sufficiently 
accounted for by the reference to the previous εὐχαριστοί, Meyer, 
on the supposition that χάρις is understood as “thanksgiving,” 
would interpret the article as meaning “that which is due.” 

It is not a valid objection to this view of χάρις that the idea of 
thanksgiving is introduced in the next verse ; on the contrary, the 
precept there is an extension of this one; what is here said of 
singing is there said of everything. 

Theophylact’s interpretation is different ; he takes χάρις in the 
sense “venustas,” “pleasingness,” μετὰ χάριτος καὶ ἡδονῆς πνευ- 
ματικῆς ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἄσματα χάριν ἔχειν δοκοῦσιν, εἰ μὴ 
πνευματικήν, οὕτω τὰ θεῖα, πνευματικήν ; SO also Bengel. Compare 


292 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [ III. 17 


for this use of χάρις ῬΕΥ ΧΙ ἐξεχύθη χάρις ἐν χείλεσί σου ; Eccles. 
Xe, λόγοι στόματος σοφοῦ χάρις 5 Luke iv. 22, ἐθαύμαζον ὁ ἐπὶ τοῖς 
ae τῆς χάριτος ; also ch. iv. 6, 6 λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι. 
Compare also Demosth. p. 51 (Phil. i. 38), ἡ τῶν λόγων χάρις, and 
so in classical writers frequently. Reiche, adopting this interpreta- 
tion, remarks: “recte et perspicue ἐν χάριτι ἄδοντες ii dicuntur, qui 
carmina sacra cantant et modulantur venuste, decore, suaviter, ita 
ut etiam cultioribus et pulchri sensu praeditis placeant.” To the 
objection that the following words show that the apostle is speaking 
of silent singing in the heart, he replies by defending the reading ἐν 
τῇ καρδίᾳ and interpreting it as = “ex animo, ζ.6. non ore tantum 
sed etiam cum animi assensu,” a questionable sense of ἐν τῇ 
καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν. See on Lk. iv. 22 and Rom. i. 5. 

In conformity with the connexion assigned to ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ἐν 
τῇ χάριτι is to be joined to what follows. Lightfoot naturally takes 
it with the preceding. 

ἄδοντες ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. These words may either specify 
another effect of the evouxety, κιτιλ. (Alford, a/.), or they may denote 
the inward disposition which was to accompany the διδάσκοντες, 
κιτιλ. If τῇ χάριτι is understood as above, the latter view would 
be the more suitable (Soden). It is preferred apart from that by 
Lightfoot. 


ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις is supported by preponderant authority, § ABC D*G, 
defg Vulg. Goth. Syr. (both), Sah. Boh. Arm., Chrys. 

ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ is supported by D°K L most mss. , Hth5 (ἴδια. Eph 
Theodoret. Compare Eph. v. 19, where the singular appears to be the 
genuine reading. The singular here, as the plural there, is probably due to 
an attempt to harmonise Eph. and Col. 

τῷ Θεῷ is the reading of NA BC* D*G 17 47 67? αἰ, dfg Vulg. Sah. 
Syr. (both), Arm., Clem. a/. 

τῷ Κυρίῳ is that of ΟΣ De K L most mss., Goth. Boh., Ephr. Theodoret, ad. 
(Chrys. varies). This, again, is harmonistic, the parallel in Eph. having τῷ 
Κυρίῳ without variation. 


17. καὶ πᾶν 6 τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ. A nominative 
absolute. Comp. Matt. x. 32, πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμόλογήσει. .. bpo- 
λογήσω Kayo ἐν αὐτῷ: Luke xii. 10. As πᾶν would become the 
object in the following clause, it is replaced by πάντα. 

πάντα. We might supply to this ποιοῦντες, parallel to the other 
participles ; but it is much better to supply ποιεῖτε, especially as 
εὐχαριστοῦντες 15 subordinate. 

ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ. Comp. Eph. v. 20. “In the name 
of” here means, not “calling on for aid,” as Chrys. etc., nor “in 
honorem,” as Jerome, but in the spirit which regards Christ as all 
and in all, the spirit which belongs to those who bear Hisname. “Ut 
perinde sit, ac si Christus faciat, ver. 11 [this is too strong] vel certe, 
ut Christo omnia pobetis. Qui potest dicere; Hoc im tuo, Jesu 
Christe, nomine fect, is certe actionem suam Christo probat,” Bengel. 


III. 18--90] SPECIAL PRECEPTS 293 


There is here another difference of reading. 

Κυρίου ᾿Τησοῦ is the reading of BD°K 17 37 most mss., f. Amiat. Tol. 
Goth. Syr-Pesh. Arm., Chrys. 

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, AC D* Gg. 

Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριτοῦ, &, de Vulg. (Clem.), Field, a7. Syr. (Harcl.), Sah. 
Boh. Eth. 


Before πατρί, καί is added in DGKL and nearly all mss., de fg Vulg. 


Syr-Pesh. Arm., Chrys. (cf. Eph. v. 20) It is absent from δὲ ABC, Sah. 
Boh. Syr. (Harcl.), Eth. Goth. 


18-IV. 1. Special precepts for the several relations of life, the 
motive being in each, that what ts done ts done “in the Lord.” 
18. αἱ γυναῖκες, κιτιλ. Comp. Eph. v. 22. 


ἰδίοις, prefixed in Rec. Text to ἀνδράσιν, has but slight support, and has 
probably come from Eph. v. 22. 


ὡς ἀνῆκεν, imperfect, as often in Greek writers with similar 
verbs. Comp. Eph. v. 4, ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν : Acts xxii. 22, οὐ yap 
καθῆκεν αὐτὸν ζῆν. It is not implied here that the duty has not 
hitherto been rightly performed, but only that the obligation existed 
previously. 

The use of the past tense in the English ‘ ought” is not quite 
parallel, since the present ‘‘owe” cannot be used in this sense. 

ἐν Κυρίῳ is to be joined with ἀνῆκεν, not with ὑποτάσσεσθε: see 
ver. 20, εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν Κυρίῳ, “for those who are in the 
Lord.” 

19. οἱ ἄνδρες, k.t.A. = Eph. v. 25. 

μὴ πικραίνεσθε. “ Become not embittered,” or rather, as this 
would seem to imply a lasting temper, “show no bitterness.” 
The word occurs frequently in classical writers. Plato has (Legg. 
731 D), τὸν θυμὸν πραὔνειν κ. μὴ ἀκραχολοῦντα, γυναικείως πικραινό- 
μενον, διατελεῖν : Pseudo-Dem. 1464, μηδενὶ μήτε πικραίνεσθαι μήτε 
μνησικακεῖν. The adjective πικρός is used by Euripides in a 
strikingly illustrative passage, /7e/en. 303, ὅταν πόσις πικρὸς ἕξυνῇ 
γυναικί. . . θανεῖν κράτιστον. Plutarch observes that it shows 
weakness of mind when men zpos γύναια διαπικραίνονται. Philo 
uses πικραίνεσθαι of just anger. De Vita Moysis, ii. pp. 135, 20, 
and 132, 34. The word would seem, then, to correspond more 
nearly with the colloquial “cross” than with “ bitter.” 

20. τὰ τέκνα, κιτιλ. See Eph. vi. τ. Disobedience to parents 
is mentioned as a vice of the heathen, Rom. i. 30, κατὰ πάντα. 
There would be no propriety in suggesting the possibility in a 
Christian family of a conflict between duty to parents and duty to 
God. 

εὐάρεστον. There is no need to supply τῷ Θεῷ ; the adjective 
is taken absolutely, like προσφιλῆ in Phil. iv. 8, and is sufficiently 
defined by ἐν Κυρίῳ. In Rom. xii. 2 εὐάρεστον seems also to be 
absolute, τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρ. καὶ τέλειον. 


204. THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [ III. 21-23 


The Rec. Text has, instead of ἐν Κυρίῳ, τῷ Κυρίῳ, with many cursives, 
Boh. Eth., Clem. ad. 

ἐν Κυρίῳ is the reading of all the uncials, most cursives, and versions. 

The Rec. arose from a desire to give a dative to εὐάρεστον. 


21. μὴ ἐρεθίζετε. ‘ Donotirritate.” The verb means to “excite, 
provoke,” not necessarily to anger, or in a bad sense ; and in 2 Cor. 
ix. 2 It is used in a good sense. 


There is another reading, rapopyifere, very strongly supported, being 
read in NAC D* GK L ai. Euthal. (Tisch. cod.), Theodoret (cod.), Theoph. 

ἐρεθίζετε is read in BD’ K, most mss., Syr. (both, but Harcl. marg. has 
the other reading), Clem. Chrys. 

mapopyifere occurs in the parallel Eph. vi. 4 (with no variety), and to this 
is obviously due its introduction here, 


iva μὴ ἀθυμῶσιν. “That they may not lose heart.” ‘“ Fractus 
animus pestis juventutis,” Bengel. A child frequently irritated by 
over-severity or injustice, to which, nevertheless, it must submit, 
acquires a spirit of sullen resignation, leading to despair. 

22. ot δοῦλοι, κιτιλ. Comp. Eph. vi. 5 ff. Here it is observ- 
able that the duties of masters and slaves occupy nearly twice as 
much space as those of husbands and wives, parents and children, 
together. ‘The circumstance is perhaps explained by the incident 
of Onesimus, a Colossian, who was now returning to his master, 
Philemon, in company with the bearer of the Epistle. 

φοβούμενοι τὸν Κύριον, 2.6. the one Lord and Master, contrasted 
with τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα ἸΚυρίοις. Observe that these words are not 
preceded by ws, whereas ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι is. It is taken for granted 
that they fear the Lord. 


ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλείαις, the plural is read with § C K L most mss., Clem. 
Theodoret, Oecum., Syr-Harcl. 

ABDG, a/., Boh. have the singular. Chrysostom varies. 

Κύριον is the reading of §* ABC D* GL ad, fg Amiat. Fuld. Syr. (both), 
Arm., Clem. Chrys. σὰ 

Θεόν is read in 8° D° K most mss., 4 Goth. Boh., Theodoret. This read- 
ing spoils the contrast. 

23. ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε. This is the correct reading, with N* A BC (D* G) 17 
al,, Old Lat. Vul. Goth. Boh. Arm. etc. (D* G have ἄν for ἐάν). 

The Rec. Text has καὶ πᾶν ὅ τι ἐάν, with D? K L most mss., Syr. (both), 
Theodoret, Chrys. (without καί). This reading obviously comes from ver. 17. 


ἐκ ψυχῆς. Eph. vi. 6. μετὰ εὐνοίας. Μὴ pera δουλικῆς ἀνάγκης, 
ἀλλὰ μετὰ ἐλευθερίας καὶ προαιρέσεως, Chrys. 

ἐργάζεσθε. “Do the work.” Not used as particularly appropriate 
to slaves, but because the things done are ἔργα. 

ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, k.t.A. Eph. vi. 7, 24, ἀπὸ Kupiov. Lightfoot notes 
the absence of the article here, while it is studiously inserted in 
the context, vv. 22-24. In the parallel in Eph. the preposition is 
παρά. Some commentators and grammarians distinguish the two 
prepositions as expressing respectively the immediate (παρά) and 


III. 24, 25] SPECIAL PRECEPTS 295 


the ultimate source ; but this distinction is untenable. See Light- 
foot on Gal. i. 12. 

24, thy ἀνταπόδοσιν. ‘The full recompense.” The word is 
frequently used both in the Sept. and in classical writers, but not 
elsewhere in N.T. 

τῆς κληρονομίας. Genitive of apposition, the reward which con- 
sists in the inheritance. There is a special point in the word, 
inasmuch as slaves could not be inheritors of an earthly possession. 
Comp. Rom. viil. 15-17 ; Gal. iv. 1-7. 

τῷ Κυρίῳ Χριστῷ Soudevete. γάρ, which in the Rec. Text is 
inserted after τῷ, must be rejected. 


In favour of the insertion are D°°K L most mss., Syr. (both), Arm. Goth. 

For the omission, § ABC D* 17 a/., Vulg. Copt. Euthal. (Tisch. cod.). 
It was clearly added to make the connexion easy. Gd and Ambrosiaster 
have τοῦ κυρίου (ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ) Χριστοῦ ᾧ δουλεύετε, but d and Ambr, omit the 
words in brackets. 


γάρ being omitted, the verb is best taken as imperative, “To 
the Master Christ do service.” The combination Κύριος Χριστός 
is not to be taken in the technical sense as=the Lord Jesus 
Christ, a use to which there is no parallel. In Rom. xvi. 18, 
where we have τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ, some MSS. omit ἡμῶν : but 
its genuineness is beyond question. In 1 Pet. 11. 15 Κύριον is 
predicate of τὸν Χριστόν. This suggests that we should take 
Κυρίῳ here as relative to dovAevere. The sentence is not so much 
a summary of what precedes as an introduction to the fresh 
point added in ver. 25; Lightfoot. 

Lightfoot takes dovAevere as indicative, on the grounds, first, 
that the indicative is wanted to explain the previous ἀπὸ Kupéov 
(but is it?); and, secondly, that the imperative would seem to 
require ὡς τῷ Κυρίῳ, as in Eph. vi. 7. On the other hand, how- 
ever, he adds, see Rom. xii. 11, τῷ Κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες. If the 
interpretation above given is correct, ὡς is rightly absent, and in 
any case the indicative would be very abrupt and unconnected. 
Moreover, with this view the connexion of ver. 25 (γάρ) would be 
hardly intelligible. Lightfoot passes it over in silence. 

25. ὃ yap ἀδικῶν κομιεῖται ὃ ἠδίκησεν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι προσωποληψία. 
The first clause is, of course, a general maxim, but the application 
here chiefly intended appears from the words οὐκ ἔστι προσω- 
ποληψία, which presuppose that the person punished is one higher 
in position. ὃ ἀδικῶν, also, is much more suitable to the master 
than the slave; and this view is further confirmed by the mention 
of τὸ δίκαιον in iv. 1. Hence ὃ ἀδικῶν in the present case is the 
master, and the words are designed to encourage the slave to 
regard himself as the servant of Christ, and as such not to be 
disheartened by unjust treatment, knowing that before the final 
tribunal there will be no respect of persons. So Theodoret, κἂν 


296 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS _ [IV.1,2 


μὴ τύχητε ἀγαθῶν ἀνταποδόσεων παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου, ἐστὶ δικαιοκριτὴ:; 
ὃς οὐκ οἷδε δούλου καὶ δεσπότου διαφοράν, ἀλλὰ δικαίαν εἰσφέρει τὴν 
ψῆφον. But Chrys. Bengel, and others suppose the ἀδικῶν to be 
the slave. ‘‘’Tenues saepe putant, sibi propter tenuitatem ipsorum 
esse parcendum. Id negatur,” Bengel; cf. Lev. xix. 15. It must 
be observed, however, that some of those who adopt this view 
have had before them the reading ὁ δὲ ἀδικῶν (so Chrys.). 

Erasmus, Lightfoot, and many others (following Jerome) sup- 
pose both masters and slaves to be referred to, as in Eph. vi. 8. 
On the other hand, 2d. ver. 9, προσωποληψία οὐκ ἔστι παρ᾽ αὐτῷ, is 
said with respect to the masters only. 

κομιεῖται. “Shall be requited for”; cf. Eph. vi. 8, and for 
προσωποληψία, 20. 9. 

ἠδίκησεν. The tense is past, from the point of view of the time 
referred to in κομιεῖται. 

For the reading the authorities are : 
For γάρ, SA BCD*G 17 a/., Old Lat. Vulg. Goth. Boh., Clem. ad, 
For δέ, D° K L, most mss., Syr. (both), Chrys. Theodoret, ad. 

IV. 1. τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα. “Justice and fairness.” ἰσότης 
differs from τὸ δίκαιον nearly as our “fair” from “just,” denoting 
what cannot be brought under positive rules, but is in accordance 
with the judgment of a fair mind, Compare Philo, De Creat. 
Princ. i. Ρ. 401, ἰσότης μὲν οὖν τὴν ἐκ τῶν ὑπηκόων εὔνοιαν καὶ 
ἀσφαλείαν ἀμοιβὰς δικαίας ἀντεκτινόντων ἀπεργάσεται. Meyer and 
others suppose the meaning to be that slaves are to be treated as 
equals, not as regards the outward relation, but as regards the 
Christian brotherhood (see Philem. 16), It would be a very 
obscure way of expressing this thought to say τὸ dik. καὶ τὴν 
ἰσότητα παρέχεσθε : nor does it agree well with the following clause, 
καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε Κύριον, not as in Eph., αὐτῶν καὶ ὑμῶν. Perhaps, 
indeed, we may regard τὰ αὐτά in Eph. (οἱ κύριοι, τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖτε 
πρὸς αὐτούς) as illustrating ἰσότης here. The same moral principles 
were to govern both. ἰσότητα οὐ τὴν ἰσοτιμίαν ἐκάλεσεν, ἀλλὰ τὴν 
προσήκουσαν ἐπιμέλειαν, ἧς παρὰ τῶν δεσποτῶν ἀπολαύειν χρὴ τοὺς 
οἰκετάς, Theodoret. Erasmus, Corn. a Lapide understand the 
word of impartiality, not treating one slave differently from others ; 
but this would be consistent with harsh treatment of all. 

παρέχεσθε. ‘Supply on your side.” 

2-6. Exhortation to constant prayer and thanksgiving, to which 
7s added the apostle’s request that they would pray for himself in his 
work. Practical advice as to wisdom in action and speech. 

2. τῇ προσευχῇ προσκαρτερεῖτε -- Rom. xii. 12; cf. τ Thess. 
v.17. We have the same verb similarly used in Acts 1. 14, ii. 46, 
Vi. 4. 

γρηγοροῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ. ‘‘ Being watchful in it,” 2.6. not careless 
in the act. ἐπειδηὴ) yap τὸ καρτερεῖν ἐν ταῖς εὐχαῖς ῥᾳθυμεῖν πόλλακις 


IV. 3, 4] REQUEST FOR THEIR PRAYERS 207 


ποιεῖ, διὰ τοῦτό φησι γρηγοροῦντες τούτεστι νήφοντες, μὴ ῥεμβόμενοι 
(wandering), Chrys. 

ἐν edxapiotia. With thanksgiving (as an accompaniment ; cf. 
il. 7). αὕτη yap ἡ ἀληθινὴ εὐχὴ ἡ εὐχαριστίαν ἔχουσα ὑπὲρ πάντων 
ὧν ἴσμεν καὶ ὧν οὐκ ἴσμεν, ὧν εὖ ἐπάθομεν ἢ ἐθλίβομεν, ὑπὲρ τῶν 
κοινῶν εὐεργεσιῶν, Theophylact. 

8. προσευχόμενοι ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν. “Praying at the same 
time also for us,” including, namely, Timothy, named with St. 
Paul as sending the Epistle, but also, no doubt, including all who 
helped him in his work (vv. to-14). 
~~ ἵνα. ‘The prayer is not for the personal benefit of the apostle 
and his companions, but for the promotion of their work. 

θύραν tod λόγους A door of admission for the word of the 
gospel, z.e. the removal of any hindrance which might be in the 
way. ‘The same figure is employed 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 12. 

Corn. a Lapide, Beza, Bengel, and others interpret θύραν τοῦ 
λόγου as “the door of our speech,” 7.e. our mouth,—an interpreta- 
tion suggested by Eph. vi. το, ἵνα μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ 
στόματος μου, but certainly not consistent with τοῦ λόγου, which 
must mean “the word.” 

λαλῆσαι, infinitive of the end or object, “so as to speak” τὸ 
ὐστήριον, K.T.A., 1. 26, i. 2; see Eph. i. 9. 

δι᾿ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι. For it was his preaching the free admission 
of the Gentiles that led to his imprisonment. 

This is the only place in which St. Paul uses ééew in the literal 
sense ; but he uses δεσμοί, Phil. i. 7, 13, and elsewhere, as well as 
δέσμιος. The transition to the singular was inevitable when he 
passed from what was common to himself with others to what was 
peculiar to himself. 

4. iva φανερώσω, x.t.A. Generally taken as dependent on the 
previous clause, “‘that God may open a door... . in order that,” 
etc. Beza, De Wette, a/., however, make it dependent on προσ- 
εὐχόμενοι, Which, on account of the change from plural to 
singular, is improbable. Bengel joins it with δέδεμαι, “ vinctus 
sum ut patefaciam ; paradoxon.” In this he follows Chrysostom, 
τὰ δεσμὰ φανεροῖ αὐτόν, οὐ συσκιάζει : but this is quite untenable. 
V. Soden, who also makes the clause dependent on δέδεμαι, 
proposes a different interpretation. He observes that φανεροῦν 
is never used of St. Paul’s preaching, nor does the notion of μυσ- 
τήριον account for its use here. It must therefore have a special 
significance, and this is to be found in its immediate reference to 
δέδεμαι. St. Paul, as a prisoner awaiting trial, had to explain 
what his preaching was. How this turned out, he relates in 
Phil. 1. 12 ff. The sense then, according to v. Soden, is: “in 
order that I may make it manifest, how I am bound to speak,” the 
emphasis being on det, not ὧς, He desires to make clear to his 


298 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [1Ρ΄. 5-8 


judges, not only what he preaches, but that he cannot do other- 
wise ; compare 1 Cor. ix. 16; Acts iv. 20. 


δι’ ὅ is the reading of δὲ AC DK L nearly all MSS., def Vulg. Goth., 
Clem. Chrys. etc. But BG, g have δι᾽ ὅν, apparently a correction to suit 
Χριστοῦ, but destroying the point of the sentence, 


5. ἐν σοφίᾳ = practical Christian wisdom ; cf. Matt. x. 16. 

πρός. ‘* With respect to,” or “‘in relation to,” z.e. your behaviour 
towards them. 

τοὺς ἔξω. ‘Those outside the Church ; compare 1 Cor. v. 12, 13 ; 
1 Thess. iv. 12. The expression is borrowed from the Jews, who 
so designated the heathen. On the precept Chrys. says, πρὸς τὰ 
μέλη τὰ οἰκεῖα οὐ τοσαύτης ἡμῖν δεῖ ἀσφαλείας, ὅσης πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω" 
ἔνθα γὰρ ἀδελφοί, εἰσὶ καὶ συγγνῶμαι πολλαὶ καὶ ἀγαθαί. 

τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοράζοντες. See Eph. v. 16, where is added a 
reason for the injunction, viz. ὅτι at ἡμέραι πονηραί εἰσιν. 

6. ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι. Still referring to behaviour, 
πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω. On xdpis=pleasingness, see above, iii. 16. χάρις 
λόγων is frequent in classical writers. 

ἅλατι ἠρτύμενος. ‘Seasoned with salt”; cf. Mark ix. 49, 50; 
pleasant but not insipid, nor yet coarse. Compare Plut. JZor. 
Ρ. 514 Εἰ, χάριν twa παρασκευάζοντες ἀλλήλοις, ὥσπερ ἁλσὶ τοῖς 
λόγοις ἐφηνδύνουσι τὴν διατριβήν: and again, p. 669 A, ἡ δὲ τῶν ἁλῶν 
δύναμις... χάριν αὐτῷ καὶ ἡδονὴν προστίθησι. ἅλας is a later 
form. 

εἰδέναι, infinitive of object, as in ver. 3, πῶς δεῖ Evi ἑκάστῳ 
ἀποκρίνεσθαι, “to each one,” according, namely, to the character, 
purpose, spirit, etc., of the inquirer. Compare the apostle’s de- 
scription of his own behaviour, 1 Cor. ix. 22, τοῖς πᾶσι γέγονα 
πάντα ἵνα πάντως Twas σώσω. His discourses and answers at 
Athens, and before Felix, Festus, and the Jews at Rome, supply 
the best illustrations. 

7-18. Personal commendations and salutations. 

7. τὰ Kat ἐμέξξ Phil. 1. 12,'“ my matters” > cf Acts axvem. 
Not a noun absolute, but the object of γνωρίσει. 

On Tychicus, see Eph. vi. 21, and compare Lightfoot’s very 
full note here. 

6 ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς = Eph. Zc. 

καὶ πιστὸς διάκονος καὶ σύνδουλος ἐν Κυρίῳ. ἐν Κυρίῳ is probably 
to be taken with both substantives, as both require some speci- 
fically Christian definition, which ἀδελῴός does not ; and, moreover, 
in Eph. Zc we have πιστὸς διάκονος ἐν Κυρίῳ. σύνδουλος is perhaps 
added in order to place Tychicus on a level with Epaphras, who 
is so designated 1. 7, and who was in high repute at Colossae. 
πιστός probably covers both substantives. 

8. ὃν ἔπεμψα, k.T.A. = Eph. vi. 22 


IV. 9, 10] PERSONAL COMMENDATIONS 299 


As to the reading, the Rec. Text has ἵνα γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, with N° C 
De K L and most MSS., f Vulg. Goth. Syr. (both), Boh., Chrys. (expressly), 
Jerome (on Philemon), Ambrosiaster, a/. 

ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν, A B D* GP a few cursives, de g Arm. Eth., 
Theodore Mops. Theodoret, Jerome (on Eph. vi. 21), Euthalius (cod. 
Tisch. ). 

N* has γνῶτε with ὑμῶν. N° at first corrected ὑμῶν to ἡμῶν to suit γνῶτε, 
but afterwards deleted this correction and substituted γνῷ for γνῶτε. The 
context, with the emphatic εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, so obviously requires yv@re . 
ἡμῶν, that, considering the weight of authority, we cannot regard this as an 
alteration made in conformity with Eph. vi. 22. Besides, it is very unlikely 
that the writer himself should, to the Ephesians, say, εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο iva 
γνῶτε, k.T.., and to the Colossians of the same messenger, εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο iva 
γνῷ, κιτιλ. On the hypothesis that Eph. is not by the author of Col., it is 
equally improbable that the former should be written instead of the latter. 
The error may have arisen from τε accidentally dropping out before ra, or, as 
Lightfoot suggests, when ὑμῶν had once been written in error for ἡμῶν (as in 
&*), γνῶτε would be read γνῷ τε, as in 111 and John Dam. Of. ii. p. 214, 
and then the superfluous τε would be dropped. These authorities, however, 
seem too late to be used to explain so early a corruption. 

Alford defends the Rec. Text, in which he is followed by Klépper ; but 
most critics and commentators adopt the other reading, 


9. σὺν ᾿Ονησίμῳ τῷ πιστῷ καὶ ἀγαπητῷ ἀδελφῷ, Observe the 
delicacy with which Onesimus is given, as far as possible, the same 
predicates as Tychicus and Epaphras, he and Tychicus being, 
moreover, associated as subject of γνωριοῦσιν. He was not διά- 
Kovos Or σύνδουλος, but as a faithful and beloved brother he is not 
placed below them. Compare Rom. xvi. 6, 12. 

os ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν, who is of you, ze. belongs to Colossae; 
hitherto, indeed, only a slave, but now a brother beloved, Philem. 
16. It deserves notice how St. Paul assumes that Onesimus will 
be welcomed as such by his former master and by the Church. 
Calvin’s very natural remark, “ Vix est credibile hunc esse servum 
illum Philemonis, quia furis et fugitivi nomen dedecori subjectum 
fuisset,” serves to put in strong relief this confidence of the apostle 
in the Colossians. 

πάντα ὕμῖν γνωριοῦσιν τὰ ὧδε. ‘This is not a formal restatement 
of τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, but includes more than that phrase, and τά περὶ 
ἡμῶν, namely, all that concerned the Church at Rome. This 
would naturally include an account of the conversion of Onesimus, 
who would be to them a living illustration of the success of St. 
Paul’s preaching in Rome. Note the change from γνωρίσει to 
γνωριοῦσιν, in order more expressly to commend Onesimus to 
their confidence. 


Gdefg Vulg. Jerome, Ambrosiaster add after ὧδε, πραττόμενα, a gloss 
which looks as if it originated in the Latin, which could not literally render 
τὰ ὧδε. 

10. ᾿Ασπάζεται ὑμᾶς ᾿Αρίσταρχος. Of Aristarchus we know that 
he was a Macedonian of Thessalonica, Acts xix. 20, xx. 4; a 


300 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [IV. 11 


member of the deputation to Jerusalem (12.), and a companion of 
St. Paul in the first part, at least, of his journey to Rome, Acts 
xxvii. 2. Lightfoot (PAc/ippians, p. 35) thought it probable that 
he parted from St. Paul at Myra, having accompanied him at first 
only because he was on his way home to Macedonia. If the 
centurion in whose charge St. Paul was had not accidentally fallen in 
at Myra with a ship sailing to Italy, their route would have taken them 
through Philippi. If this view is correct, Aristarchus must have re- 
joined St. Paul at Rome at a later date. In any case, the notices 
in Acts show that he would be well known in proconsular Asia. 

6 συναιχμάλωτός pou. αἰχμάλωτος properly means a captive 
taken in war, and hence it has been supposed that it may here 
have reference to spiritual captivity ; cf. Rom. vii. 23; 2 Cor. x. 5; 
Eph. iv. ὃ. But none of these passages justify such an interpreta- 
tion. In Rom. the verb is used of captivity to sin; in Eph. it is 
in a quotation from a Psalm; while in Cor. it is the thoughts that 
are brought into captivity so as to be obedient to Christ. There 
is no analogy to support the supposed use of αἰχμάλωτος absolutely 
in the sense supposed. It would be particularly unlikely to be 
so used in a letter actually written from prison. 

On the other hand, St. Paul speaks of the service of Christ in 
terms of military service; cf. 2 Tim. 11. 3, and συστρατιώτης, Phil. 
ii. 25; Philemon 2. Τί is in accordance with this that he should 
use the term συναιχμάλωτος here (and of Epaphras in Philem. 23). 
It has been conjectured that St. Paul’s helpers may have volun- 
tarily shared his imprisonment in turn ; for Epaphras, who is here 
a συνεργός, is in Philemon a συναιχμ.; and Aristarchus here συναιχμ. 
is there a συνεργός. 

Μάρκος 6 ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα, “cousin,” so defined by Pollux, iii. 
28, ἀδελφῶν παῖδες ἀνεψιοί, εἴτε ἐκ πατραδέλφων εἰσι, εἴτε ἐκ pyTpa- 
δέλφων εἴτε ἐξ ἀδελφοῦ καὶ ἀδελφῆς, εἴτ᾽ ἐκ δυοῖν ἀρρένων ἀδελφῶν εἴτ᾽ 
ἐκ δυοῖν θηλειῶν. The use of it for “nephew” is very late. 

The relationship explains why Barnabas was more ready than 
Paul to condone Mark’s defection, Acts xv. 37-39. At the same 
time, the passage throws light in turn on the rather remarkable 
form of commendation here, “if he comes unto you, receive him.” 
The Pauline Churches, which were aware of the estrangement, 
might not be very ready to give a very hearty welcome to Mark. 
Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 11. δέχεσθαι is a regular term for hospitable 
reception. See, for example, Matt. x. 14; John iv. 45; often also 
in classical writers. 

περὶ οὗ, κιτιλ. These injunctions probably had reference to 
the friendly reception of Mark, so that their purport is repeated 
in the following words. 

11. Ἰησοῦς 6 λεγόμενος “lodatos. Not mentioned elsewhere. 
The surname Justus is applied to two other persons in the 


IV. 12] PERSONAL SALUTATIONS 301 


N.T., namely, Joseph Barsabbas, Acts i. 23, and a proselyte at 
Corinth, Acts xviil. 7. It was a frequent surname amongst the 
Jews. 

οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς. These words are best connected with the 
following, οὗτοι μόνοι, κιτιλ. The sense then is, “of those of the 
circumcision, these alone are,” etc. Otherwise, οὗτοι μόνοι would 
not be true (see vv. 12-14), and οἱ ὄντες ἐκ π. would have no signi- 
ficance. This construction, in which the more general notion 
stands first as in a nominative absolute, and the particular notion 
follows with the verb, is used by classical writers. 

On this οὗτοι μόνοι comp. Phil. 11. 20, οὐδένα ἔχω ἰσόψυχον. 

συνεργοί is the predicate, so that the apostle does not apply the 
term to the opponents. 

οἵτινες as usual specifies, not the individuals, but the character, 
“men that proved.” See on Lk. ii. 4. The aorist ἐγενήθησαν 
seems to refer to some definite recent occasion. 

παρηγορία, “comfort,” only here in N.T., frequent in Plutarch. 
There is no ground for Bengel’s distinction, that παραμυθία refers 
to domestic, and παρηγορία to forensic trouble. So far as the 
latter word has a technical sense, it is medical (cf. “ paregoric ἢ) ; 
but it is commonly used of consolation in general. 

12. ᾿Επαφρᾶς, see i. 7. 

6 ἐξ ὑμῶν. ‘Who is one of you.” 

δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. A title frequently used by St. Paul of 
himself, once of Timothy in conjunction with himself, Phil. i. 1 
but not elsewhere of any other. 

πάντοτε ἀγωνιζόμενος, κιτιλ. Compare 1. 29. 

ἵνα στῆτε τέλειοι καὶ πεπληροφορημένοι. ‘That ye may stand fast, 
perfect and fully assured.” στῆναι, as in Eph. vi. 11, 13, a/., con- 
veys the idea of standing firm ; hence τέλειοι καὶ πεπλ. are secondary 
predicates, the first expressing the objective moment, the second 
the subjective; they were not only to be τέλειοι ἐν Χριστῷ, i. 28, 
but to have full assurance; cf. il. 2. πληροφορεῖν in N.T. means 
either “to fulfil,” as in 2 Tim. IVs 5, ky ΘΙ tO persuade fully,” as 
in Rom. iv. 21, πληροφορηθεὶς 6 OTL... δυγώτάς ἐστιν ; XIV. 55 ἐν τῷ 
ἰδίῳ νοὶ ΠΥ It is read in Rom. xv. 13, in ΒΒ where 
the sense is “fill”; but the better attested reading is πληρώσαι. 
The Rec. Text here has πεπληρωμένοι. See on Lk. 1. 1. 

ἐν παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. “In all the will of God” is not quite 
correct, yet we cannot say “every will of God.” Lightfoot renders 
“in everything willed by God.” The words are best connected 
with τελ. καὶ πεπλ., not with στῆτε, as the order of the words 
shows. παντί probably has reference to the variety of circum- 
stances in which the Christian may find himself, with perhaps a 
hint at the contrast with the definite external precepts of the false 
teachers. 


? 


302 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [IV. 1ξ, 14 


στῆτε is the reading of x’. AC DGKLP and most mss., Chrys. Theodoret. 

σταθῆτε, ἐδ B23 71 al, Euthal. (cod. Tisch.). Comp. Matt. ii. 9, xxvii. 
11, in both which passages BC 1 33 have ἐστάθη for the Rec. ἔστη. The 
passive is adopted by the critical editors in all three places. 
a Re tier ae NABCD*G ai, Syr-Harcl. marg., Euthal. (cod. 

1scn. ). 

πεπληρωμένοι, D¢K LP most mss., Syr-Harcl. text. and Pesh. Arm., 
Chrys. Theodoret. As, however, πληροφορεῖν is sometimes used with the 
meaning ‘‘ fill,” the versions cannot be quoted with certainty for the latter 
reading, which probably slipped in as the more familiar and simpler word. 

18. μαρτυρῶ γὰρ atts. ‘The apostle confirms by his testimony 
what he has just said of Epaphras. 

ὅτι ἔχει πολὺν πόνον. “That he has much labour.” πόνος is not 
found elsewhere in N.T. except in the Apocalypse. It is, however, 
a common word for struggle in battle, and hence corresponds with 
the ἀγών of the apostle himself, ii. 1, and with the ἀγωνιζόμενος of 
ver. 12. The two words occur in juxtaposition in Plato, Phaedr. 
247 B, ἔνθα δὴ πόνος τε Kal ἀγὼν ἔσχατος ψυχῇ πρόκειται. 

πολὺν πόνον, δὲ A BC P δ8ο, Euthal. (cod. Tisch.), Old Lat. Vulg. Goth. 
Boh. Arm. 

ζῆλον πολύν, Rec., with KL most mss., Syr. (both), Chrys. Theodoret. 
Dr" al. have πολὺν ζῆλον ; D* G, πολὺν κόπον. 

Five cursives have πόθον, and two (6 67°) ἀγῶνα. 

No doubt the rarity of πόνος in the N.T. is responsible for the variety of 
reading. It is found in the Apocalypse only. 

ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ καὶ τῶν ἐν Ἱεραπόλει. Laodicea 
and Hierapolis stood on opposite sides of the valley at a distance 
of about six miles from one another, and twice as far from 
Colossae. From the conjunction of the three names here it 
appears probable that Epaphras stood in the same relation, as 
evangelist, to the three, and also that they were threatened by the 
same dangers; as, indeed, their near neighbourhood and con- 
sequent frequent intercourse would suggest. Compare ii. 2. 

14, ἀσπάΐξεται ὑμᾶς Λουκᾶς ὁ ἰατρὸς 6 ἀγαπητός. “Luke the 
physician, the beloved.” Beyond question the evangelist, named 
also 2 Tim. iv. 11 as well as Philem. 24. It is interesting to find 
two of the evangelists in St. Paul’s company here. The reason of 
his calling being specified may be that he was attending on St. 
Paul in his professional capacity. It has been observed that his 
first appearance in company with St. Paul, Acts xvi. 10, “nearly 
synchronises with an attack of the apostle’s constitutional malady 
(Gal. iv. 13, 14), so that he may have joined him partly in a 
professional capacity ” (Lightfoot). From the manner in which he 
is separated from the group in ver. to it is clear that he was a 
Gentile. This is fatal, not only to the tradition that he was one 
of the Seventy (which, indeed, is hardly consistent with the preface 
to his Gospel), but also to the conjecture that he was the author of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. See on Lk. i. 2, x. 1-16, xxiv. 13-32. 


IV. 15] PERSONAL SALUTATIONS 303 


kat Anpas. Probably a contraction for Demetrius. It is 
remarkable that he is named without any epithet of commenda- 
tion, which is the more striking as coming after 6 ἀγαπητός. In 
Philem. 24 he is named with Mark, Aristarchus, and Luke as a 
συνεργός of St. Paul. But in 2 Tim. iv. ro he is mentioned as 
having deserted St. Paul, ἀγαπήσας τὸν viv αἰῶνα. Perhaps the 
curt mention here foreshadows that desertion. 

16. ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἀδελφούς, καὶ Νυμφᾶν, καὶ τὴν 
κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν (or αὐτοῦ) ἐκκλησίαν. Nymphas (if this reading 
is correct) is probably a short form of N ymphodorus ; cf. Artemas 
for Artemidorus, Zenas for Zenodorus (Tit. ili. 12, 13), Olympas 
for Olympiodorus (Rom. xvi. 15), and perhaps Lucas for Lucanus. 

τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον, k.7.A., 2.6. the Church that assembled in their 
house. The same expression occurs, Rom. xvi. 5 and 1 Cor. 
xvi. 19, of the house of Prisca and Aquila at Rome and at Ephesus 
respectively ; also Philem. 2. Compare Acts xii. 12. Separate 
buildings for the purpose of Christian worship seem not to be 
traced earlier than the third century. Bingham, Azzy. viii. 1. 13, 
shows that special rooms were so set apart, but gives no instances 
of separate buildings. Probst (K7irchliche Disciplin, p. 181 f.) is 
referred to by Lightfoot as affording similar negative evidence. Τί 
is curious that Chrysostom understands the expression to refer 
only to the household of Nymphas. ὅρα γοῦν πῶς δείκνυσι μέγαν 
τὸν ἄνδρα, εἴ γε ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησία. 

αὐτῶν is difficult: Alford, Lightfoot, αἰ, understand it as 
referring to ot περὶ Νυμφᾶν. Alford compares Xen. Mem. i. 2. 62, 
ἐάν τις φανερὸς γένηται κλέπτων. . . τούτοις θάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ζημία, 
which is clearly not parallel, for tus is one of a class, and τούτοις 
all those belonging to that class. Lightfoot compares Xen. Anad, 
ill. 3. 7, προσήει (Μιθριδάτης) πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας" ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐγγὺς 
ἐγένοντο, KT. X., and iv. 5. 33» ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἦλθον πρὸς Χειρίσοφον, κατελάμ- 
βανον καὶ ἐκείνους σκηνοῦντας. These also are not parallel, since 
here, as in other languages, the force is called by the name of its 
commander. Hence Meyer says that the plural cannot without 
violence be referred to anything but “the brethren in Laodicea 
and Nymphas.” He thinks, then, that by these brethren is meant 
a Church distinct from that of Laodicea, but in filial relation to it, 
and meeting in the same house. Lightfoot also suggests (as an 
alternative to his first-mentioned view) that the “brethren in 
Laodicea” may refer to a family of Colossians settled in Laodicea. 

The reading varies between αὐτῶν, αὐτοῦ, and αὐτῆς. 

For the plural, SACP 5 9 17 23 34 39 47 73, Boh. (wrongly quoted by 
Tisch. αἰ. for αὐτοῦ, see Lightfoot), Arab. (Leipz.), Euthalius (cod. Tisch.). 

For αὐτοῦ are DGKL 37 (cod. Leic.) nearly all cursives, Goth., Chrys. 
Theodoret (expressly), Ambrosiaster, 

For αὐτῆς, B 677. 

The Latin versions have the singular ‘‘ ejus,” and so both Syriac. In the 


304 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [Iv. 16 


latter the gender would be indicated only by a point. The Pesh. is pointed 
inconsistently, making Nympha feminine (Numphe) and the suffix (corre- 
sponding to αὐτοῦ or αὐτῆς) masculine. The Harclean, again, has the suffix 
feminine in the text, masculine in the margin. How the translator intended 
the proper name to be taken is uncertain; it may be either masc. or fem. 
Lightfoot thinks probably the latter. The Greek name is accented as 
feminine (Νύμφαν) in Β΄ and Euthalius (cod. Tisch.). 


Νύμφαν as a feminine name would be Doric, and the occur- 
rence of such a form here is highly improbable. αὐτῆς, then, is 
probably a correction suggested by this misunderstanding of 
Νύμφαν. But it seems more probable that the scribe who made 
the correction had αὐτοῦ before him than αὐτῶν. αὐτῶν, again, 
might readily have been suggested to the mind of a copyist by his 
recollection of Rom. xvi. 5 and 1 Cor. xvi. 19 assisted by the 
occurrence of ἀδελφούς just before. 

αὐτῆς is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles (margin), WH., v. Soden, 
Weiss. Nvudav being accentuated accordingly. 
αὐτῶν, by Tischendorf, Alford, Meyer, Tregelles (text). 


αὐτοῦ, by De Wette (who designates αὐτῶν “‘false and unmeaning”), 
Ellicott. 


16. καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή. Obviously the 
present Epistle, as Rom. xvi. 22, Τέρτιος ὃ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν: 
1 Thess. v. 27, ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολήν : 2 Thess. 11]. 14, διὰ 
τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, these latter verses being of the nature of a post- 
script. 

ποιήσατε tva. Cf. John xi. 37. ποιεῖν, in the sense “take 
care,” is sometimes followed by ὅπως, as in Herod. 1. 8, ποίεε ὅκως 
ἐκείνην θεήσεαι γυμνήν : 10. 209, ποίεε ὅκως ἐπεάν. .. ὥς μοι 
καταστήσῃς τὸν παῖδα. So with ὡς, Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3. 18. 

iva καὶ ἐν TH Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῇ. See the similar 
direction 1 Thess. v. 27, ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπ. πᾶσι τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. 
The present Ep. was to be read in the assembly of the Church, 
and a copy sent to Laodicea and similarly read there. Compare 
the address 2 Cor. i. 1, which implies the sending of copies to 
neighbouring Churches. 

καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας. Chrysostom says that some understood 
this of a letter written from Laodicea to St. Paul. The Syriac- 
Pesh. also renders “written from L.”; and so Theodore Mops., 
Theodoret, and many others, including Beza, a Lapide, Estius, 
and some recent commentators. But why should St. Paul direct 
the Colossians to get from Laodicea the letter written to him, of 
which he could not assume even that the Laodiceans had retained 
a copy? and how would the letter of the Laodiceans edify the 
Colossians ? Moreover, καὶ ὑμεῖς obviously implies that the 
Laodiceans were the receivers of the letter. Theophylact sup- 
poses the first Epistle to Timothy to be meant, which, according 
to the subscription, was written from Laodicea, This subscrip- 


IV. 16] THE EPISTLE FROM LAODICEA 305 


tion, indeed, probably owes its origin to the theory, which was 
earlier than Theophylact, and appears in the margin of the 
Philoxenian Syriac. Other Epistles of St. Paul have been similarly 
said in some of the Versions to be “written from Laodicea” (see 
Lightfoot). It is fatal to all such hypotheses that St. Paul had not 
been at Laodicea before this time (11. 1), and, even had he been 
there, had now been some time in prison, and therefore could not 
have written any letter recently from Laodicea. 

These hypotheses are obviously founded on the error that ἡ ἐκ 
A. must mean “the letter written from ‘L.’” But this is not so. 
When the article with a preposition expresses a substantival notion, 
it is often proleptic, a construction which is called the attraction 
of prepositions (Jelf, § 647), Thucyd. 11. 34, θάπτουσι τοὺς ἐκ τῶν 
πολέμων : 111. 22, ἤσθοντο οἱ ἐκ τῶν πύργων φύλακες : Vi. 32, Evvered- 
χοντο δὲ καὶ ὃ ἄλλος ὅμιλος ὃ ἐκ τῆς γῆς. Most of the instances, 
indeed, cited by Jelf, 7c, and others are with verbs implying 
motion, as in Luke xi. 13, xvi. 26. 

Assuming, then, as certain that the Epistle was one written by 
St. Paul to Laodicea, we have three alternatives to choose from. 
First, there is extant an Epistle actually bearing the title “To the 
Laodiceans.” It is extant only in Latin, but must have been 
originally written in Greek. Of it Jerome says (Vir. 71. 5): 
“Jegunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur.” 
It is, indeed, abundantly condemned by internal evidence. It is 
a mere cento of Pauline phrases put together with no definite 
connexion or purpose, and absolutely destitute of any local 
allusion, except in the last line, which is obviously borrowed from 
the verse before us, viz.: “εἰ facite legi Colosensibus et Colos- 
ensium vobis.” As Erasmus truly and strikingly expresses it: 
“nihil habet Pauli praeter voculas aliquot ex caeteris ejus epistolis 
mendicatas. . . . Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus 
effingere. Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus. At 
haec, praeterquam quod brevissima est (about as long as this ch. 
iv.), quam friget, quam jacet! . . . Nullum argumentum efficacius 
persuaserit eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola.” It is found, 
however, in many copies of the Latin Bible from the sixth to the 
fifteenth century, and, as Lightfoot observes, for more than nine 
centuries it “hovered about the doors of the sacred canon, without 
either finding admission or being peremptorily excluded,” until at 
the revival of learning it was finally condemned on all sides. The 
Latin text of the Epistle will be found on p. 308. A full account 
of its history with a collation of the principal MSS., also a transla- 
tion into Greek, will be found in Lightfoot. 

Secondly, it may be a lost Epistle. We have no reason to 
question the possibility of St. Paul having written letters which 


have not come down to us (compare, perhaps, 1 Cor. v. 9); but in 
20 


306 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [IV. 17 


the present case we may observe, first, that the Epistle referred to 
was one to which some importance was attached by St. Paul 
himself, so that he himself directs that it be read publicly in two 
distinct Churches (for the passage justifies us in assuming that it 
was publicly read in Laodicea as well as Coiossae) ; and, secondly, 
that in consequence of this direction not only must it have been 
copied, but great publicity was, in fact, assured to it. The Epistle 
to Philemon, which was in itself unimportant, and private, was not 
allowed by the Colossians to be lost, how much less an important 
public letter? Again, we know of three Epistles sent at this time 
to Asia Minor, namely, those to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, 
and to Philemon. It is best not to assume a fourth unless we are 
compelled to do so, which it will be seen we are not. In any case 
it could hardly have been an Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans, 
since if it had been we should not have salutations to the Lao- 
diceans in this Epistle, not to say that it would be called τὴν πρὸς 
Λαοδικέας rather than τὴν ἐκ A. 

The third alternative is that the Epistle is one of those that we 
possess under another title. As early as the fourth century the 
claim was put forward on the part of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
by Philastrius, apparently from conjecture only, and one or two 
modern writers have adopted the same hypothesis. But in spite 
of some partial coincidences, it is really impossible to suppose 
these two Epistles to have been written at the same time by the 
same author to the same neighbourhood. 

The Epistle to Philemon has also been suggested, and Wieseler 
(Chronol. des Apost. Zeitalter, p. 450 ff.) speaks of this identifica- 
tion as scarcely open to doubt; but that Epistle is entirely private, 
and the delicacy of its appeal would be destroyed if St. Paul 
directed it to be read in public. 

There remains the Epistle to the Ephesians, which we know 
to have been written about the same time as the Epistle to the 
Colossians, and conveyed by the same messenger, and which, on 
quite distinct grounds, is, with high probability, regarded as a 
circular letter (see Introduction). 

iva καὶ ὑμεῖς dvayvate. ‘See that ye also read.” It would be 
rather awkward to make this ἵνα depend directly on ποιήσατε. It 
may be taken independently, as in Gal. ii. 10, μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν 
ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν : 2 Cor. vill. 7, ἵνα καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ TH χάριτι περισ- 
σεύητε (John ix. 3; 2 Thess. iii. 9; 1 John ii. 19 are not quite 
parallel). 

ὅπως is frequently used by classical writers in a similar manner. 
Here, however, as ποιήσατε has just preceded followed by ἵνα, it 
is perhaps more natural to understand before this ἵνα, “ see that,” 
taken out of ποιήσατε by a sort of zeugma. 

17. καὶ εἴπατε “Apxinmw. Archippus, called by St. Paul his 


IV. 18] FINAL SALUTATION 307 


συστρατιώτης (Philem. 2), was probably a son of Philemon, and a 
leading presbyter at Colossae (to suppose him to be a regular 
bishop would be an anachronism), or perhaps an “evangelist ” 
(Eph. iv. 11). Lightfoot thinks it more probable that he resided 
at Laodicea (of which place the Apostolic Constitutions make him 
bishop), and accounts thus for St. Paul πὴ addressing him 
directly. Contrast the direct address, Phil. iv. But there the 
request addressed to the “ true yokefellow” is a een one ; here 
it is general, and the form adopted gives it an official character 
which is natural and suitable ; in fact, a direct address would have 
the appearance of harshness and discourtesy to the Colossians, 
and this the more the greater the authority he possessed. Would 
not this be the impression inevitably produced, if after animad- 
verting on the heretical teaching in Colossae, the apostle had 
added, “and thou, see that thou fulfil thy office”? 

βλέπε, “look to”; compare 1 Cor. i. 26, βλέπετε τὴν κλῆσιν 
ὑμῶν: x. 18, βλέπετε τὸν ᾿σραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα. In Phil. iii. 2, 
βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, k.t.A., the idea is of being on one’s watch 
(against). 

τὴν διακονίαν. Clearly some office more important than the 
diaconate, properly so called, is intended here. So 2 Tim. iv. 5, 
τὴν διακονίαν cov πληροφόρησον : compare Acts xii. 25, πληρώ- 
σαντες THY διακονίαν (of a special mission to Jerusalem). 

ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν Κυρίῳ. The qualification ἐν Κυρίῳ probably 
belongs both to the person and to the reception of the office ; as 
living in the Lord, he received it, and he received it as committed 
to him in the service of the Lord. 

ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς. For the construction, compare 2 John 8; 
and for the sense, 2 Tim. iv. 5 quoted above. 

The admonition reminds us, indeed, of the admonitions to 
Timothy and Titus. If Archippus was a young man, and recently 
appointed to his office, it would be a natural reminder of its 
greatness and its difficulty ; and there is no need to suppose that 
a covert censure on his previous laxity is implied. 

18. ὁ ἀσπασμὸς TH ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου -- τ Cor. xvi. 21; 2 Thess. 
11. 17. In the latter passage St. Paul states that this was his 
usual custom. 

μνημονεύετέ μου τῶν δεσμῶν. An appeal, touching 1 in its brevity, 
and one which could not proceed from an imitator. He does not 
ask specially for their prayers, their sympathy, that they should 
spare him further anxiety, or the like ; but all these are included 
in the request that they ‘“ were ever to keep before them the fact 
that one who so deeply cared for them, and loved them, and to 
whom their perils of false doctrine occasioned such anxiety, was a 
prisoner in chains,” Alford; who adds, “when we read of ‘his 
chains’ we should not forget that they ‘moved over the paper as 


308 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS [Iv. 18 


he wrote. His hand was chained to the soldier that kept him.” 
This circumstance perhaps explains the singular abruptness of the 
request. 

ἡ χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. This short form of benediction is used also 
in t Tim. vi. 21 and 2 Tim. iv. 22. 7 χάρις used thus absolutely 
occurs only in the later Epistles. In the earlier it is defined by 
the addition of τοῦ Κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ]. 

᾿Αμήν is added in 8° Ὁ Κ L P and most mss., def Vulg. Goth. Syr. 
(both), Boh. etc. 

Omitted in §* ABC FG 17 677, gal. 

For the subscription, ἃ ABCDGLPal. have πρὸς Kodacoaes (or 
Κολοσσαεις, BOr D F GL P, etc.), to which A Be add ἀπὸ ῥωμης (ῥωμη A), 
and so Syr. (both) ; but Boh. has ‘‘scripta Athenis.” 


Some later authorities, Καὶ L and many cursives, add διὰ Τυχικοῦ καὶ 
’Ovnoluov. For other varieties and additions, see Tischendorf. 


Here follows the text of the spurious Epistle from a MS, in 
the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. 


AD LAODICENSES. 


Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem ; sed 
per Jhesum Christum fratribus qui sunt Laodicie. Gratia vobis 
et pax a Deo patre nostro et Domino Jhesu Christo. 

Gratias ago Deo meo per omnem orationem meam quod 
permanentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, pro- 
missum expectantes in die iudicii. Neque destituant vos quo- 
rundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii 
quod a me praedicatur etsi faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad 
perfectum veritatis evangelii et servientes et facientes benignitatem 
operum salutis vite eterne. Et nunc palam sunt vobis vincla mea 
quae patior in Christo quibus laetor et gaudeo et hoc mihi est ad 
salutem perpetuam quod ipsum factum orationibus vestris et 
administrante Spiritu Sancto, sive per vitam sive per mortem, est 
enim michi vivere vita in Christo et mori gaudium et in id ipsum 
vobis faciet misericordiam suam ut eandem dilectionem habeatis 
et sitis unanimes. Ergo dilectissimi ut audistis praesentia mei, ita 
retinete et facite in timore Dei et erit vobis vita eterna, est enim 
Deus qui operatur in vobis et facite sine retractu quecumque 
facitis et quod est [reliquum] dilectissimi gaudete in Christo et 
praecavete sordidos in lucro. Omnes sint petitiones vestre palam 
apud Deum et estote firmi in sensu Christi et quae integra sunt 
et vera et pudica et iusta et amabilia facite, et quae audistis 
et accepistis in corde retinete et erat [526] vobis pax. Salutant 
vos sancti. Gratia Domini nostri Jhesu cum spiritu vestro. . Et 
facite legi epistolam colosencium vobis, 


INDEX? ΤΟ THE NOTES. 


---.-- - 


I. SUBJECTS AND NAMES. 


Aboth, 42. 
Abstract for concrete collective, 41. 
plural, 32. 
Acta Pauli et Petri, 261. 
Thomae, 165. 
Aelian, 20, 25. 
Aeons, ἵν]. 
Aeschines, 34, 89, 151, 242. 
Aeschylus, 69, 89, 101, 128, 136, 286. 
** Affections,” 278. 
‘¢ Afflictions of Christ,” 230. 
Alexander, Abp., 222. 
Alford on character of Ep. to Eph., 
xi; Comm. fasszm. 
Analogy, 172. 
Angelology, 33, 215. 
Angels of the law, 260. 
Anger whether always unlawful, 140. 
Antoninus, 40, 45, 160. 
Apocalypse, relation to Eph., xxviii. 
to Col., lix. 
Aorist, 48, 49, 215, 225, 279, 282, 283. 
infinitive, 13672. 
participle, 257. 
Apocrypha, 16, 57, 136, 144, 145, 184, 
219, 243, 249, 267, 268, 283, xxii. 
Apollonius, 153. 
Apostles, 72, 117. 
Apostolic Constitutions, 307. 
Archippus, 306. 
Arians, 213. 
Aristaenetus, 246. 
Aristarchus, 147, 299. 
Aristophanes, 44, 155. 
Aristotle, 14, 18, 29, 36, 44, 96,149,161, 
203, 217, 224, 242, 256, 272, 276. 
Arrian, 64, 143. 
Artemidorus, 154. 


Article, 51, 213, 201, ix, x. 

absence of, 58, 135. 

generic, 274. 
Asceticism of a later age, 273. 
Athanasius, 27, 94, 213, 268, 260. 
Athenaeus, 57, 59, 89. 
Atonement, the, 146. 
Augustine, St., 39, 162, 208, 223, 

230, 242, 244, 265, 267, 268, 273. 

Ausonius, 16. 


Baptism, infant, 176, 
Barnabas, Ep., 11, 26, 300, 1. 
Basil St-.193) 102, 2125270, 5 
Baur, 40, 82, xiv, livsqq. 
‘* Being in,” 128. 
Bengel’s maxim, Proclive scriptioni 
praestat ardua, xlv. 
remark, saepe vis modi, etc., 140. 
Bentley, 267. 
Bernhardy, 64, 89. 
Bingham, 303. 
Bishops’ Bible, 138. 
Bisping, 230. 
Blaikie, 164. 
Bloomfield, 164. 
‘* Body ” not= ‘‘ totality,” 250. 
Bugenhagen, 167. 
Building, the, 73. 
Bullinger, 152. 
Butler, Bp., 95, 140, 153. 


Caesarea, whether Eph. written from, 
xX. 

‘* Captivity is captive led,” 113. 

Cerinthus, xlix, liv. 

Chains, St. Paul’s, 189, 307. 

Charles, Mr., 241. 


210 


**Children of wrath,” 44. 
Christ as sacrifice, 147. 
whether afflicted in His people, 
231. 
whether the mystery of God, 239. 

Christology of Ep. to Eph., xxii. 

Chrysostom on character of Ep. to 
Eph., xiii; Comm. fasszm. 

Cicero, 14, 16, 44, 64, 98, 131, 132, 
255, 286, 289. 

Cilicism, supposed, 265. 

Circumcision, spiritual, 57, 251. 

Clemens Alex., 10, 21, 39, 161, 209, 
att IL 

Clemens Rom., viii. 

Cockerell, xlix. 

Coleridge on Eph., xiv. 

Colossae, xlvii. 

Colossian heresy, xlviii. 

Colossians had not heard St. Paul, 
238. 

Colossians, relation of Ep. to Eph., 
xxiii. 

Conybeare, 255, 260. 

Coverdale, 273. 

Covetousness, 133. 

Creature, reconciliation of, 222. 


Davenant, 221, 241, 264. 

Delitzsch, 139. 

Demas, 303. 

Demiurge, liv. 

Demosthenes, 12, 34, 53, 89, 128, 145, 
187, 202, 207, 218, 229, 243, 258, 
265, 266, 286, 292, 293. 

Descent into hell, 115. 

De Wette on language of Eph., xv. 

Didaché, viii. 

Dio Cassius, 229. 

Diodorus, 12, 177, 275. 

Diogenes Laertius, 42, 144, 230, xlix. 

Dionysius Halic., 285. 

Dionysius (pseudo), 33. 

Dispensation of the grace of God, 79. 

Dissen, 149. 

Dobree, 101. 


Earthquakes in Lycus Valley, xxxi. 
**Element” or ‘‘sphere,” 108, 122, 
128. 
Enoch, Book of, 17, 241, 248. 
Epaphras, 199, 298, 300, 302, xlviii. 
Ephesians, to whom written, i, 25, 78. 
external evidence of genuineness, 
ix. 
objections from language, xiv. 
from line of thought, xix. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


Ephesians, relation to Col., xxiii; to 
1 Pet., xxiv; to Heb., xxvi; 
to Apocalyse, xxviii. 

Ephrem Syrus, 33. 

Epictetus, 48, 136. 

Epiphanius, 275, xiii, liv. 

Erasmus, xlix. 

Eratosthenes, 265. 

Essenes, 247, 273. 

Estius, iv; Comm. fasszm. 

Eubulus, 89. 

Eucharist, 172. 

Euripides, 35, 69, 89, 144, 268, 293. 

Eusebius, 93, xxxi, xlvii. 

Eustathius, 265. 

Euthymius, 102. 

Evangelists, 118. 

Ewald, 11, 111, 250, viii, xiii. 

Excitement, spiritual, 162. 


*¢ Father of,” 27. 

Field, Dr., 143, 266. 

Findlay, 164. 

Firstborn of all creation, 211. 

History of the interpretation, 213. 

Forgiveness in Christ, 146. 

Foundation of apostles and prophets, 
271. 

Fritzsche, 9, 34, 35, 48, 54, 71, 104, 
106, 152, 159, 161, 178, 237. 

Future with ‘‘see lest,” 246. 


Galen, 126, 271, 276. 

“* Genitive of reference,” 211. 

Gnostics, 13, 40, 182, 209, 241, 247, 
xlix; on Gnostic conceptions in 
(ΟΙ., ᾿ν 54. 

“* Going off at ἅ word,” 62, xxii. 

Grace, IO. 

Greek, modern, 26, 50. 

Gregory Naz., 144. 

Gregory Nyss., 89. 

Grimm, 20. 

Grotius on Ep. to Eph., xiv. 


Hammond, 133, 223. 
Hausrath, xxiv. 
Heavens, 116. 
things in, 222. 

Heavenly powers, 32. 
Hebrews, Ep. to, xxvi. 
Hebraism supposed, 40, 42, 117, 150, 

223,02 
Heliodorus, 246. 
Hermann, 48, 141, iv. 
Hermas, xii. 
Hermes, 224. 


I, SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Herodian, 288. 

Herodotus, 94, 129, 148, 183, 186, 
275, xvii. 

Hesychius, 61, 98, 131, 266. 

Hierapolis, 237, 302, xlix 

Hierarchy, celestial, 33. 

Hilary, 258. 

Hilgenfeld, 269, xiv. 

Hippocrates, 20, 144, 185, 272. 

Hippolytus, 214, 258, xii. 

Hitzig, 139. 

Hofmann, 176, 233. 

Holtzmann, 40, 216, xiii, xiv xxiii, 
li, a. 

‘* Holy Apostles,” 82. 

Homer, 11, 41, 53, 74, 118, 147, 
186, 277, 279. 

Hope and love, 196. 

Hort, 80, 136, iv, xx, xxii, xxxi. 

Humility, 105. 


Ignatius, 246, 284, 287, viii xi. 
““Tmitators of God,” 146. 
‘<Tncidental revelation,” 33. 
‘*Tn the Lord,” 103. 
Infinitive of end, 317. 

of object, 297, 298 
Jrenaeus, 13. 
Isaeus, 226. 
Isidore of Pelusium, 212. 
Isocrates, 170, 265. 
ἘΡ ΤῸ saithss) TIT, 250. 


Jelf, 48, 305. 

Jeremiah, vi, 10, 57. 

Jewish notions, 116, 142, 247, 298. 

erome, xxxi; Comm. fassz. 

John St., Gospel of; its relation to 
Eph., xxviii. 

*<Joint,” ambiguity of, 125. 

Josephus, 12, 45, 121, 247, 257, 260, 
264, 266, 286, 289, xlvili. 

Judaic element in Colossian Church, 
xlviil. 

Jiilicher, xiv, xvi, lii. 

Justin, 93, 212. 

Juvenal, 255. 


Kepler, 248. 

Kiene, x. 

Kneeling in prayer, 93. 
Kihl, 248. 


Labour, Christian, object of, 142. 
Laodicea, Council of, 268. 
Epistle from, 237, 302, 304, iii, 
V, Vii, xii, αἰ, 


311 


Le Clerc, 267. 

Life of God, 130. 

Lightfoot, ‘‘ Biblical Essays,” v, xiii. 

Liturgy, whether quoted, 158. 

Liturgies, 164. 

Locke, 19, 88. 

‘* Lower parts of the earth,” 115. 

Lucian, 12, 36, 98, 248, 277, 286. 

Luke, 302. 

Lycus Valley, natural phenomena, xlix. 
Churches of, xlviii, 

Lysias, 224, 275. 


Mahaffy, Dr., lii, liii. 

Malalas, 85. 

Mangold, xiii, xxx. 

Marcion, 227, ii, xiii, li. 

Marcosians, 13, 209. 

Mark, 300. 

Marriage; why called a “ Sacra- 
ment,” 175. 

Mayerhoff, li. 

Metaphors, mixture of, 97, 119, 245. 

Middle voice, 18, 38, 156, 272. 

Middleton, 153. 

Milligan, Dr., vii. 

Milton, 33. 

Monro, Homeric Gram., 78. 

Miiller, Max, 285. 

Muratorian Canon, ν, li. 

“* Mystery,” 15. 

Mystery of God, 239. 

Mysteries, words supposed to be 
borrowed from, 236. 


Name, ‘‘in the name of,” 163. 
Neander, 247, 

Nemesius, 269. 

Nominative, irregular, 96. 
Nympha or Nymphas, 303. 


Onesimus, 299. 
Onthovius, 103. 
Original sin, 45. 
Origen on the address of Ep. to 
Eph., i. 
on redemption, 13. 
on angels, 33. 
a peculiar reading of his, 263. 


Paley, 189. xx. 

Pandects, 68. 

“ς Paradox of the Crucifixion,” 262. 
Participle, paraphrases with, 275. 
Paul, St., hisstyle, a singularity of, xxi. 
Pearson, Bp., 109, x. 

Perfect tense, 26. 


312 INDEX TO 


Perowne, Bp., 260. 

Persians, 148. 

Philemon, Ep. to, lvii, [ν 11]. 

Philippians, Ep. to, lvii, lviii. 

Philo, 12, 14, 35, 36, 44, 45, 76, 96, 
203, 210, 214, 217, 246, 259, 264, 
268, 289, 293, 296. 

Philostratus, 120. 

Photius, 129, 229, 266. 

Phrynichus, 69, 73, 84. 

Pindar, 31, 149. 

ῬΙαΐο; 12, τὰ. 16. 26; 20; 53) 55; 50) 
64, 83, 90, 95, 124, 149, 151, 179, 
215, 217, 226, 236, 242, 243, 256, 
260, 264, 275, 279, 283. 

Plautus, 149, 285. 

Pliny, xlvii. 

Plutarch) 11, 12; ΤΑ, 38,) 41, 107, 
141, 143, 149, 161, 170, 218, 243, 
248, 258, 262, 293, 208. 

Platonic doctrine of Ideas, 285. 

Polyaenus, 183. 

Polybius, 12, 39, 120, 122, 128, 131, 
136, 155, 160, 181, 182, 272, 283. 

Polycarp, 133, 139, xi. 

Martyrdom of, 160. 

Present tense, 73. 

Principalities, 88, 259. 

Probst, 303. 

“* Proclivi scriptioni,” etc., xlv. 

“* Prophesy,” 10, 117. 

Pythagoreans, 42, 141, 288. 


Quintilian, 18. . 
Quotations from O.T., 110, 157. 


Rabbinic views, 42, 60, 142, 151, 
182, 210. 

Ramsay, Prof., 159, xlviii. 

Rashi, 113. 

Reading, the more difficult, xlv. 

Reconciliation of things in heaven, 
222% 

Reiche, 114, 172, 290, 202, viii. 

Reiske, 217. 

Renan, xvi. 

Reuss, li, Iviii. 

“* Right hand of God,” 32, 

Ritschl, 12, 223, 248, 260. 

Robertson (Arch.), xv, xvi. 

Rosetta Stone, 261. 

“* Rudiments of the world,” 247. 


Sacrificial words, 227. 

Salmon, Dr., xxvi, xxvii, lii, lviii. 
Sanday and Headlam, 78, 174. 
Scaliger, 9. 


THE NOTES 


Schleiermacher, 214, 210, xiii. 
Scholefield, 233. 


-Schéttgen, 147, 151, 182, 251. 


Schott, xxvil. 

Schwegler, xiv. 

Scythians, 286, 

Self-love, 171 

Seneca, 178. 

Seufert, xxvi. 

Seventy (LXX), the fallacious mode 
of reference to, 14. 

Seventy, the, termed apostles, 117. 

Shadow of things to come, 264. 

Shakespeare, 11, 15. 

Simplicius, 288. 

Sop 58, 59, 84, 97, 170, 260, 
268. 


Spitta, 248. 

Stobaeus, 165. 

Stoics, 144. 

Strabo, xlvii. 

Suidas, 36. 

Subject, change of, 257. 
Sumner, 276. 


Svoboda, xlix. 


Tacitus, 40, 289, xxxi. 

Targum, 112. 

Taylor, Dr. C., 270. 

Tenses, 73, 136, 144, 244, 279, 284. 

Tertullian, 117, 219, 220, 226, ii, 1. 

Testaments of the XII, Patriarchs, 
33, 42, 145, 182, 216, 267. 

Testamentum Salomonis, 148. 

Themistius, 273. 

Theophrastus, 203. 

Thrones, etc., 216. 

Thucydides, 128, 186, 224, 275, 305. 

Toup, 267. 

Trench, 104, 106, 133, 161, 249. 

Trophimus, 61. 

“« Truth as it is in Jesus,” 135. 

Tychicus, 190, 298. 


Ussher, vi. 
Usteri, xiii. 


Vail of the Court of Gentiles, 61. 
Valentinians, xii, lvi. 

Virtue, threefold division, 153. 
Vitringa, 32. 


Weiss on ‘‘ in Christ,” 5. 
Westcott on Heb. cited, 12. 
on St. John cited, 13. 
Wetstein, 215, 262, 277, 
288, al. 


286, 


II. GREEK WORDS 


Wieseler, 306. 
Winer, 26, 100, 103, 228, 229, 255. 


Xenophon, 35, 36, 45, 61, 83, 84, 


313 


129, 134, 145, 150, 179, 242, 243, 
273, 303, xlvii, lii. 


Zonaras, 266, 268. 





IT. GREEK WORDS. 
E. stands for Ephesians, C. for Colossians, 


ἀγαθωσύνη, E. v. 9. 

ἅγιοι, E. i. 2, ii. 19, 

ἄθεος, E. ii. 12. 

ἀθυμεῖν, Ὁ. 111. 21. 

αἰσχρολογία, C. iii. 8. 

αἰών, E. il. 2. 

ἅλας; C. iv. 6: 

ἀληθεύειν, E. iv. 15. 

ἀλλά, E. v. 243 C. ii. 5. 

ἅλυσις, E. vi. 20. 

ἄμωμος, E. i. 4, v. 273 C. i. 22. 

ava-, in compos., E. 1. 10, iv. 23. 

ἀνακαινοῦν, C, iii. 10. 

ἀνακεφαλαιοῦσθαι, E. i. 10. 

ἀναστροφή, E. iv. 22. 

ἀνῆκεν, E. v. 4; C. iii. 18. 

ἀνταναπληροῦν, C. 1. 24. 

ἀνταπόδοσις, C. 111. 24. 

ἀντι-, in compos., Ὁ. i. 24. 

ἀντὶ τούτου, E. v. 31. 

ἀπεκδύεσθαι, C. ii. 15, iii. 9. 

ἀπέκδυσις, C, il. 11. 

ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι, E. 11. 12, iv. 183 
(On Hy 721: 

amdérns, E. vi. 53 C. iii. 22. 

ἀποθνήσκειν ἀπό, Ὁ. ii. 20. 

ἀποκαταλλάσσειν, E. ii. 163 C. i, 20, 
22. 

ἀπόκρυφος, 6. 11. 3. 

ἀπολύτρωσις, E. i. 7, 14, iv. 303 C. 
1: 14: 

ἀπόχρησις, C. il. 22. 

ἀρραβών, E. 1. 14. 

dpx7, E. i. 213 C. i. 18, ii, 10: 

dpxal, Ἐπ ill. 10, vi. 123 C. i. 16, ii. 


ies 
ἀσελγεία, E. iv. 19. 
ἀσωτία, E. v. 18. 
ἀφειδία, Ο. 11. 23. 

ἄφεσις, E. i. 7. 

ἁφή, E. iv. 16 ; C. ii. 19. 
ἀφθαρσία, E. vi. 24. 


βάπτισμα, βαπτισμός,, C. ii. 12. 


βάρβαρος, C. iil. τι. 

βλέπειν, Ὁ. iv. 17. 

βούλομαι, E. i. 11. 

βραβεύειν, C. iii. 5; and see on ii. 18. 
βρῶσις, Ο. 11. 15. 


γενηθῆναι, E. iii. 7. 
γινώσκειν, pregnant, E. ili. 19. 
γνῶσις, C. ll. 3. 


déew, (ὃς iv. 3. 
δειγματίζειν, C. 11. 15. 
δέχεσθαι, C. iv. 11. 
διάβολος, E. iv. 27. 
διακονία, C. iv. 17. 
διάνοια, Εἰ. 11. 3. 
διδασκαλία, C. 11. 22. 
δίκαιος, C. iv. I. 
δόγμας ln sth 15. (Cp sie 1ἢ- 
δογματίζειν, C. 11. 20. 
δόξα, E. 1. 17. 


ἔγειρε, E. v. 14. 

ἐθελοθρησκεία, C. 11. 23. 

εἴγε, Introd. iv; E. iil. 2, iv. 21. 

εἰκῆ, C. iii. 18. 

εἰκών, C. 1. 15. 

εἶναι els, C. ii. 22. 

εἰρηνοποιεῖν, E. 1. 20. 

ἐκλέγεσθαι, E. 1. 4. 

ἐλαχιστότερος, E. iii. 8. 

ἐλέγχειν, E. v. 11, 13. 

ἐμβατεύειν, Ὁ. 11. 18. 

ἐν with dative, whether of the ‘* ele- 
ment, or sphere,” E. iv. 4, 14, 17. 

ἐνέργεια, E. 1. 19. 

fp, (On vib, τις 

ἐξουσία, E. i. 213 τοῦ ἀέρος, ii. 23 
τοῦ σκότους, Ὁ. i. 13. 

ἐξουσίαι, E. iii. 10, vi. 12; C. i. 16, 
11. 15. 

ἔξω, οἱ ἔξω, Ὁ. iv. 5. 

ἐπί, with dative, E. ii. 10. 

ἐπιγινώσκειν, Ὁ. i. 6. 


314 


ἐπίγνωσις, C. i. 9. 

ἐπιχορηγεῖν, C. ii. 19. 

ἐπιχορηγία, E. iv. 16. 

ἐποικοδομεῖν, E. 11. 20. 

ἐπουράνιος, E. i. 3, 20, ii. 6, ili. 10, 
ΜΙ 12: 

ἐργάζεσθαι, C. iil. 23. 

ἐργασία, E. iv. 19. 

ἐρεθίζειν, C. ili. 21. 

ἑτοιμασία, E. vi. 15. 

εὐάρεστος, E. v. 10. 

εὐδοκεῖν, Ὁ. 1. 19. 

εὐδοκία, E. i. 5, 9. 

εὐλογητός, E. 1. 3. 

εὐτραπελία, E. v. 4. 

εὐχαριστεῖν, E. i. 16. 

εὐχαριστία, ἘΠ ν. 4; (ὁν 1  Ἰν- 2- 

εὐχάριστος, C. ili. 15. 

ἐχθρός, Ο. i. 21. 


ζωή, E. iv. 18. 
ἡλικία, E. iv. 13. 


θέλειν, E. i. 11. 
θέλων ἐν, C. 11. 18. 
θεότης, C. il. 9. 
θιγγάνειν, Ὁ. li. 21. 
θριαμβεύειν, Ὁ. 11. 15. 
θυσία, E. v. 2. 


ἵνα, E. ii. 9; C. i. 193 position, E. 
111. 18. 

ἰσότης, C. iv. 1. 

ἰσχύς, E. 1. 19. 


καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, E. i. 15. 

καί, special use of, E. i. 21, v. 18; C. 
15. 1. 5: 

καιρός, E. i. 10. 

κατά, E. iv. 24. 

καταβραβεύειν, Ὁ. 11. 18. 

καταρτισμός, E. iv. 12. 

κατοικεῖν, E. ili. 17; C. i. 19. 

κενεμβατεύειν, ?C. ii. I 

κληρονομία, C. 11. 24. 

κλῆρος, C. 1. 2. 

κληροῦν, E. 1. 11. 

κομίζεσθαι, E. vi. 8. 

κοσμοκράτωρ, E. vi. 12. 

κρατεῖν, (Co sth, το: 

κράτος, E. 1. 19. 

κρίνειν, C. il. 16. 

κτίζειν, Εἰ- 11. 10; Gans kOe 

κτίσις, C. i. 15. 


λέγει, E. iv. 8, ν. 14. 


INDEX TO THE NOTES 


λόγον ἔχειν, Ὁ. 11. 23. 

λυτροῦν, see on E. i. 6. 

μακροθυμία, E. iv. 2; C. i, 11, ill. 
12. 

μαρτύρομαι, with infin., 

ματαιότης, E. iv. 17. 

μέγας, not= English “great,” E. v. 32. 

μέν, absent, Εἰ. v. 8. 

μέρος, ἐν μέρει, Ὁ. 11. 16. 

μέσος, ἐν μέσου, Ὁ. ii. 14. 

μεσότοιχον, Be i. 54: 

μηδέ, μήτε, E. Ἵν 27. 

μομφή, C. iil. 13. 

μυστήριον, Ἐπ. 9, 1π- 3,.4, 9, Ve 32, 
Vi) 10; (Co 1. 20; 2751. ΠΣ 


BE: ἰν. 17. 


νεκρός, E. ii. I. 
ξένος, with gen., ἘΣ. ii. 12. 


οἰκεῖος, ἘΣ. 11. 19. 

οἰκοδομή, E. ii. 21. 

οἰκονομία, E. i. 10; Introd. xvii. 

ὄνομα, E. i. 21. 

ὀνομάζειν, E. 1. 21, ili. 15. 

ὁσιότης, E. v. 24. 

doris, Εἰ. ili. 13, iv. 19, vi. ἘΦ (ΟΣ ve 
Il. 

οὕτως, E. v. 28. 

ὀφθαλμοδουλεία, E. vi. 63 Ὁ, ili. 22. 


πάθος, Ο. ili. 5. 

πανουργία, E. iv. 14. 

παρακαλεῖν, Εἰ. iv. I, vi. 22. 

maparoyiver bat, C. ii. 4. 

παράπτωμα, E. i. 7, ti. 13 Ὁ, 11, 12. 

παραστῆσαι, E. ν. 27; C. i. 22. 

παρηγορία, τ ὔν. hire 

πάροικος, E. ii. 19. 

παροργισμός, E. vi. 4. 

παρρησία, ἘΝ. 111. 12, vi. 193 C. ii. 
I5- 

ey fate E. vi. 20. 

πᾶς, without article, E. ii. 21, iii, 15. 

πατήρ, E. iv. 17. 

mar pid, 158 τ i 

περί and ὑπέρ, E. vi. 18. 

πεπληροφορημένοι, C. iv. 12. 

περιπατεῖν ἐν, E. 11. 23 Ὁ. iii. 7. 

περιποίησις, E. 1. 14. 

πιθανολογία, Ὁ. ii. 4. 

πικραίνεσθαι, C. 111. 19. 

πιστός ἐν, E. 1. 1. 

πλεονεξία, E. iv. 19, v. 33 C. iil. 5. 

πληρούμενος, E. 1. i 


πληροῦν τὸν λόγον, C. 1. 25. 


ΠΙ. LATIN WORDS 315 


πληροῦσθαι ἐν, E. v. 18; Ὁ. 1]. το. συμμυστής, Introd. xi. 
πληροφορεῖν, C. iv. 12. συναιχμάλωτος, Ὁ. iv. 10. 
πληροφορία, (Ὁ. ii. 2. συναρμολογεῖν, E. iv. 16. 
πλήρωμα, E. 1. 10, 23, ili. 19, iv. 13; συνδεσμός, E. iv. 16; Ὁ. ii. 19. 

Canis Os 115.0: συνεργός, C. iv. II. 
πλησμονή, C. ii. 23. σύνεσις, Ὁ. 1. 9. 
πλούσιος, C. ili. 16. σώμα, (ΟΣ 1: 22; 1. ΤῈ: Τῆς 
πλοῦτος; E.i. 73 C. i. 27 ; Introd. xxi. σωματικῶς, Ὁ. il. 9. 
πνευματικός, EK. i. 3, vi. 12. 
ποιεῖν, E. 111. 11. Tacs, (ΟΣ iis 5 
ποιεῖν πρόθεσιν, E. 111. 12. ταπεινοῴροσ νη, E. iv. 2. 
ποίημα, E. il. 10. Té, E. ii. 18 
ποιμήν, ἘΠ. iv. II. τέλειος, C. i. 28, iv. 12. 
πολιτεία, EF. 11. 12. τεῆς (Ca ti 25: 
πολυποίκιλος, ἘΣ. iii. 10. τις, with particip. and article, C. ii. 8. 
πρεσβεύω ἐν ἀλύσει, E. vi. 20; Introd. 

Xxii. ὕμνος, E. v. 19; C. iii. 16. 
προετοιμάζειν, E. 11. 10. ὑπεναντίος, C. 1]. 14. 
πρός; (δ: li. 23. ὑπέρ and περί, E. vi. 18. 
πρὸς 0, E. iii. 4. ὑπερ-, compounds with, E. iii. 20. 
προσαγωγή, E. 11. 18, iii. 12. ὑπομονή, C. i. II. 
προσευχή and δέησις, E. vi. 18. 
προσφορά, E. v. 2. φανεροῦν, Ὁ. iv. 4. 
προσωποληψία, ἘΣ οἷ: (δ: 1 25s φανεροῦσθαι, E. ν. 133 Ὁ. 1. 26, iii. 4. 
πρωτεύειν, (Ge ty τ; φιλοσοφία, Ὁ. 11. 8. 
πρῶτος, E. vi. 2. φραγμός, E. 11. 14. 
πρωτότοκος, C. 1. 15, 18. φρόνησις, E. 1. 8. 
πώρωσις, E. iv. 18. φύσει, E. 11. 3. 
ῥῆμα, E. ν. 26. xdpis, E. i. 63 C. iii. 16, iv. 6, ai. 
ῥιζοῦν, E. iii. 18, χαριτοῦν, E. i. 6. 

χειρόγραφον, C. ii. 14. 

campos, E. iv. 29. χρεία, E. iv. 29. 
σοφία, E. i. 8,17; Ὁ. i. 9, ii. 3. χωρίς, E. ii. 12. 
σπλάγχνα, Ὁ. iii. 12. 
σπουδάζειν, E. iv. 3. ψαλμός, E. v. 19; C. iii. 16. 
στερέωμα, C. 11. 5. ψεύδεσθαι, C. ili. 9. 
στῆναι, EB. vis 11. 12; C. iv. 12. ψεῦδος, E. iv. 25. 
στοιχεῖα, C. ii. 8. ψυχή, ἐκ ψυχῆς, E. vi. 63 C, iii. 23. 
συλαγωγεῖν, Ὁ. ii. 8. 
συμβιβάζειν, E. iv. 16. 67, E. v. 19; C. 111. τό. 


III. LATIN WORDS. 


aedificatoriae, 230. interpolare, ii. 
arbitrium, 280. luxuria, 161. 
causa exentplarts, 214. morologus, 149. 
chirographum, 251. Satisfactoriae, 230. 


Jumus, 147. urbanitas, 149. 





a 
ν 


Maddy} 
hea) 
ἢ ye 





᾿ Bh i 
ΝᾺ 
Vee Ari 


‘i 
iat 
nr 








DATE DUE 











IM? 


GAYLORD PRINTEDINU.S.A. 





A critical and exegetical commentary on 





BS2695 .A134 : Ἡμεῖς ἣ ] 
' 








Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library ὌΧ ᾿ g pee 3 τ 
1 1012 00155 5392 [ie “| 
j=? ᾿ | ea 
ts | 2 

oe 3 

tit 

8 

Ϊ 

13 

bi 

| 





